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.
29 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tippsgreen2 sentences2020See Tipps, 842 S.W.2d at 272–73 (footnote omitted) (recognizing that by requiring the parties to proceed to final judgment before a defendant can challenge the denial of arbitration, the defendant “would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause it contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated”). 2018Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266 , 272–73 (Tex. 1992) (granting mandamus relief where party “would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause it contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated”). | 18 | 28 |
In Re MHI Partnership, Ltd.green2 sentences2004Furthermore, because the trial court’s order requires the parties to litigate the issue of Jeanie’s standing before presumably resuming arbitration, Billy and Lynn will have been “deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause ..., and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated.” See In re MHI P’ship, Ltd., 7 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (citing Jack B. 2004Furthermore, because the trial court’s order requires the parties to litigate the issue of Jeanie’s standing before presumably resuming arbitration, Billy and Lynn will have been “deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause . . ., and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated.” See In re MHI P’ship, Ltd. , 7 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (citing Jack B. | 4 | 4 |
In Re Masonite Corp.green1 sentence2015Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272-73 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (“Absent mandamus relief, [Relator] would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause it contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated.”); In re Golden Peanut Co., 298 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re L & L Kempwood Assocs., L.P., 9 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Tex. 1999), “[a] party denied the right to arbitrate pursuant to an agreement subject to the FAA does not have an adequate remedy by appeal and is entitled to mandamu | 1 | 1 |
L & L Kempwood Associates, L.P. v. Omega Builders, Inc.green1 sentence2015Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272-73 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (“Absent mandamus relief, [Relator] would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause it contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated.”); In re Golden Peanut Co., 298 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re L & L Kempwood Assocs., L.P., 9 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Tex. 1999), “[a] party denied the right to arbitrate pursuant to an agreement subject to the FAA does not have an adequate remedy by appeal and is entitled to mandamu | 1 | 1 |
In re Curtis & Castle Arbitrationgreen2 sentences2014Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272-73 (Tex.1992) (“Absent mandamus relief, Anglin would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause it contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated.”); Temple v. Riverland Co., 228 S.W. 605, 609 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1921, no writ) (“Arbitration is an arrangement for taking and abiding by the judgment of selected persons in some disputed matter, instead of carrying it to the established tribunals of justice; and is intended to avoid the formalities, the delay, the expen 2014Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272-73 (Tex.1992) (“Absent mandamus relief, Anglin would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause it contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated.”); Temple v. Riverland Co., 228 S.W. 605, 609 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1921, no writ) (“Arbitration is an arrangement for taking and abiding by the judgment of selected persons in some disputed matter, instead of carrying it to the established tribunals of justice; and is intended to avoid the formalities, the delay, the expen | 1 | 1 |
Temple v. Riverland Co.green1 sentence2014Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272-73 (Tex.1992) (“Absent mandamus relief, Anglin would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause it contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated.”); Temple v. Riverland Co., 228 S.W. 605, 609 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1921, no writ) (“Arbitration is an arrangement for taking and abiding by the judgment of selected persons in some disputed matter, instead of carrying it to the established tribunals of justice; and is intended to avoid the formalities, the delay, the expen | 1 | 1 |
In Re Bruce Terminix Co.green1 sentence2012Anglin Co., 842 S.W.2d at 272-73 (recognizing, prior to enactment of Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.016, appropriateness of mandamus relief “[w]hen a Texas court enforces or re *855 fuses to enforce an arbitration agreement pursuant to the [FAA] ” because that party “would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause it contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated”); see also In re Bruce Terminix Co., 988 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex.1998) (orig. proceeding) (holding there is no adequate remedy by appeal | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig
green
1 sentence2015Anglin Co. v. Tipps, we stated that even if the refusal were & REM.CODE § 15.0642). eventually corrected on appeal, the party seeking arbitration 57 Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304 “would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause (Tex.1994). it contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be 58 Act of May 27, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 1296, 1997 defeated.” 64 This is at least as true, perhaps more so, when Tex. Gen. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Golden Peanut Co., LLC
green
1 sentence2015Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272-73 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (“Absent mandamus relief, [Relator] would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause it contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated.”); In re Golden Peanut Co., 298 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re L & L Kempwood Assocs., L.P., 9 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Tex. 1999), “[a] party denied the right to arbitrate pursuant to an agreement subject to the FAA does not have an adequate remedy by appeal and is entitled to mandamu | 1 | 2015–2015 |
CMH HOMES v. Perez
green
1 sentence2015Anglin, 842 S.W.2d at 272-73 (awarding mandamus relief where a party "would be deprived of the benefits of the arbitration clause it contracted for, and the purpose of providing a rapid, inexpensive alternative to traditional litigation would be defeated"). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/895326/cmh-homes-v-perez/? 11/24/2015 CMH HOMES v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444 - CourtListener.com Page 7 of 9 Perez argues mandamus review is inappropriate because CMH Homes failed to file a separate mandamus petition and, citing JackB. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Apache Bohai Corp. v. Texaco China, B.V.
green
1 sentence2006Ordinary appellate deadlines did not apply because the court = s order was interlocutory. [4] The court recognized only a limited exception to this general rule, holding that mandamus review would be appropriate only if a party A can meet a > particularly heavy = mandamus burden to show > clearly and indisputably that the district court did not have the discretion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration. = @ Palacios , 2006 WL 1791683 , at *1 B 2 (quoting Apache Bohai Corp., LDC v. Texaco China, B.V. , 330 F.3d 307 , 310 B 11 (5th Cir. 2003)). [5] Plaintiffs argued below that the personal | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re Palacios
green
1 sentence2006Ordinary appellate deadlines did not apply because the court = s order was interlocutory. [4] The court recognized only a limited exception to this general rule, holding that mandamus review would be appropriate only if a party A can meet a > particularly heavy = mandamus burden to show > clearly and indisputably that the district court did not have the discretion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration. = @ Palacios , 2006 WL 1791683 , at *1 B 2 (quoting Apache Bohai Corp., LDC v. Texaco China, B.V. , 330 F.3d 307 , 310 B 11 (5th Cir. 2003)). [5] Plaintiffs argued below that the personal | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Freis v. Canales
green
2 sentences2001In Freis v. Canales, 877 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.1994) (orig.proceeding) (per curiam), the supreme court considered whether mandamus would lie from an order compelling arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. 2 See id. at 284 . 2001In Freis v. Canales, 877 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.1994) (orig.proceeding) (per curiam), the supreme court considered whether mandamus would lie from an order compelling arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. 2 See id. at 284 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.