Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
in Re Guggenheim Corporate Funding, LLC, Orpheus Holdings LLC, Stellar Funding Ltd., and Orpheus Funding LLCgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., In re Guggenheim Corp. Funding, LLC, 380 S.W.3d 879, 886 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding) (“[A] determination of the scope of an unambiguous arbitration clause is a matter of contract interpretation and a question of law for the trial court.”). 2016See, e.g., In re Guggenheim Corp. Funding, LLC, 380 S.W.3d 879, 886 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding) (“[A] determination of the scope of an unambiguous arbitration clause is a matter of contract interpretation and a question of law for the trial court.”). .Griffin contends . that the oral agreement modified the Subcontractor Agreement, leaving intact the Subcontractor Agreement’s arbitration provision and extending its reach to encompass the C&D haul-off claims. | 2 | 2 |
FD Frontier Drilling (Cyprus) Ltd. Frontier Drilling USA, Inc., Frontier Drilling AS And Noble Drilling (U.S.) L.L.C. v. Steve Didmongreen1 sentence2015FD Frontier Drilling (Cyprus), Ltd. v. Didmon, 438 S.W.3d 688, 694 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
McReynolds v. Elstongreen1 sentence2012See Osornia v. AmeriMex Motor & Controls, Inc., 367 S.W.3d 707, 710-11 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.); McReynolds v. Elston, 222 S.W.3d 731, 740 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (reviewing scope of a contract’s arbitration clause under de novo standard). | 1 | 1 |
Fernando Osornia v. Amerimex Motor & Controls, Inc.green1 sentence2012See Osornia v. AmeriMex Motor & Controls, Inc., 367 S.W.3d 707, 710-11 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.); McReynolds v. Elston, 222 S.W.3d 731, 740 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (reviewing scope of a contract’s arbitration clause under de novo standard). | 1 | 1 |
Trico Marine Services, Inc. v. Stewart & Stevenson Technical Services, Inc.green1 sentence2005See Trico Marine Servs., 73 S.W.3d at 548 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.