contract containing the arbitration clause in Ohio

27 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Ohio 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.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
Intergen N v. v. Grinagreen ca1 · 2003 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2009–2018 2 sentences 2018“This doctrine ‘precludes a party from enjoying rights and benefits under a contract while at the same time avoiding its burdens and obligations.’” Physician’s Weight Loss, 184 Ohio App.3d 805 , 2009-Ohio-5699 , 922 N.E.2d 1012, at ¶ 15 , quoting InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 145 (1st Dist.2003). {¶19} In this case, United contends that because the FPA contains mandatory arbitration of any and all disputes between United and UH, Caresource must be compelled to arbitrate, even though it is not a signatory to the FPA, because Caresource seeks the benefit of the FPA, specifically that Uni 2009This doctrine “precludes a party from enjoying rights and benefits under a contract while at the same time avoiding its burdens and obligations.” InterGen N.V. v. Grina (C.A.1, 2003), 344 F.3d 134, 145 . {¶ 16} The Thomson-CSF court’s estoppel analysis turned on whether the nonsignatory derived a direct benefit from the contract containing the arbitration clause such that acceptance of the benefit would also require acceptance of a contractual obligation.	2	3
I Sports v. Img Worldwide, Inc.green ohioctapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2017–2018 2 sentences 2018Arbitration Assn., 64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir.1995). {¶18} Estoppel applies where “a nonsignatory who knowingly accepts the benefits of an agreement is estopped from denying a corresponding obligation to arbitrate.” I Sports v. IMG Worldwide, Inc., 157 Ohio App.3d 593 , 2004-Ohio-3631 , 813 N.E.2d 4, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing Thomson-CSF at 778 (estoppel analysis depends on whether the nonsignatory derived a direct benefit from the contract containing the arbitration clause such that acceptance of the benefit would also require acceptance of a contractual obligation). 2018Arbitration Assn., 64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir.1995). {¶18} Estoppel applies where “a nonsignatory who knowingly accepts the benefits of an agreement is estopped from denying a corresponding obligation to arbitrate.” I Sports v. IMG Worldwide, Inc., 157 Ohio App.3d 593 , 2004-Ohio-3631 , 813 N.E.2d 4, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing Thomson-CSF at 778 (estoppel analysis depends on whether the nonsignatory derived a direct benefit from the contract containing the arbitration clause such that acceptance of the benefit would also require acceptance of a contractual obligation).	2	2
Javitch v. First Union Securities, Inc.green ca1 · 2003 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2009–2016 2 sentences 2016Further, Appellees argue that DRI cannot separately pursue its claims against Scherzer because E&Y is a necessary and indispensable party to those claims. {¶23} As the Magistrate’s decision notes, the “application of equitable estoppel is warranted . . . when the signatory [to the contract containing the arbitration clause] raises allegations of . . . substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Liedtke v. Frank, 437 F.Supp.2d 696, 699 (N.D.Ohio 2006); see Javitch 2009See also Javitch v. First Union Secs., Inc. (C.A.6, 2003), 315 F.3d 619, 629 .	2	2
MATTER OF MANAGEMENT RECRUITERS INTERN. v. Nebelgreen ohnd · 1991 · cited in 5 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1995–2012 2 sentences 2012Recruiters Internatl., Inc. and Nebel, 765 F.Supp. 419, 420 (N.D.Ohio 1991); see also ABM Farms, Inc. v. Woods, 81 Ohio St.3d 498, 502 , 692 N.E.2d 574 (1998). 2002Recruiters Internatl., Inc. and Nebel (N.D.Ohio. 1991), 765 F. Supp. 419 , 420 .	1	5
Gerig v. Kahngreen ohio · 2002 · cited in 4 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2006–2018 2 sentences 2018Taylor, 130 Ohio St.3d 411 , 2011-Ohio-5262 , 958 N.E.2d 1203 at ¶ 33, citing Gerig, 95 Ohio St.3d 478 , 2002-Ohio-2581 , 769 N.E.2d 381 at ¶ 19. 2017Gerig v. Kahn, 95 Ohio St.3d 478 , 2002-Ohio-2581, ¶ 19 .	1	4
Gerig v. Kahngreen ohio · 2002 · cited in 4 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2006–2018 2 sentences 2018Taylor, 130 Ohio St.3d 411 , 2011-Ohio-5262 , 958 N.E.2d 1203 at ¶ 33, citing Gerig, 95 Ohio St.3d 478 , 2002-Ohio-2581 , 769 N.E.2d 381 at ¶ 19. 2017Gerig v. Kahn, 95 Ohio St.3d 478 , 2002-Ohio-2581, ¶ 19 .	1	4
ABM Farms, Inc. v. Woodsgreen ohio · 1998 · cited in 4 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2001–2012 2 sentences 2003To establish fraud in the inducement, "a plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a knowing, material misrepresentation with the intent of inducing the plaintiff's reliance, and that the plaintiff relied upon that misrepresentation to her detriment." ABM Farms , 81 Ohio St.3d at 502 . {¶ 22} A claim of fraud in the inducement may be arbitrable depending upon whether the party is claiming that it was fraudulently induced into accepting the arbitration clause contained in a contract, or whether the fraud is generally directed at the contract containing the arbitration clause. 2002See Krafcik v. USA Energy Consultants, Inc. (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 59 * * *; Weiss; Smith v. Snap-On Tools Corp. (Jan. 6, 1993), 1993 Ohio App. Lexis 6511, Hamilton App. No. C-910902, unreported.' " Id. {¶ 18} Accordingly, "[a] claim that the contract containing the arbitration clause was induced by fraud does not defeat a motion to compel arbitration unless the claimant can demonstrate specifically that the arbitration clause itself was fraudulently induced." ABM Farms, supra, at 501 . {¶ 19} Ohio law regarding the severability of an arbitration clause from the remainder of a contract has be	1	4
Krafcik v. USA Energy Consultants, Inc.green ohioctapp · 1995 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1999–2012 2 sentences 2012Appellees claim that Larry signed the financing agreement based on misrepresentations regarding Koch’s authorized-dealer status, Koch’s competency to perform the requested work, and Koch’s authorization to work in Ohio. “‘A claim that the contract containing the arbitration clause was induced by fraud does not defeat a motion to compel arbitration unless the claimant can demonstrate specifically that the arbitration clause itself was fraudulently induced.’” Krafcik, 107 Ohio App.3d at 63 , 667 N.E.2d 1027 , quoting Matter of Mgt. 2012Appellees claim that Larry signed the financing agreement based on misrepresentations regarding Koch’s authorized-dealer status, Koch’s competency to perform the requested work, and Koch’s authorization to work in Ohio. “‘A claim that the contract containing the arbitration clause was induced by fraud does not defeat a motion to compel arbitration unless the claimant can demonstrate specifically that the arbitration clause itself was fraudulently induced.’” Krafcik, 107 Ohio App.3d at 63 , 667 N.E.2d 1027 , quoting Matter of Mgt.	1	3
Orcutt v. Kettering Radiologists, Inc.green ohsd · 2002 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Care at *4, citing Orcutt v. Kettering Radiologists, Inc., 199 F.Supp.2d 746, 752 (S.D.	1	1
Liedtke v. Frankgreen ohnd · 2006 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Further, Appellees argue that DRI cannot separately pursue its claims against Scherzer because E&Y is a necessary and indispensable party to those claims. {¶23} As the Magistrate’s decision notes, the “application of equitable estoppel is warranted . . . when the signatory [to the contract containing the arbitration clause] raises allegations of . . . substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Liedtke v. Frank, 437 F.Supp.2d 696, 699 (N.D.Ohio 2006); see Javitch	1	1
Peltz Ex Rel. Estate of Peltz v. SEARS, ROEBUCKgreen paed · 2005 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006See, also, Peltz v. Sears, Roebuck Co. (E.D.Pa. 2005), 367 F.Supp.2d 711 , 718-719 (decedent's beneficiaries, although nonsignatories to the contract containing the arbitration clause, were bound to arbitrate because their wrongful death claims derived from the decedent's claims). 2 {¶ 18} This court, however, cannot apply the holdings of Turcotte, Wilkerson, or Peltz to the instant case because all these cases turn upon the derivative nature of the wrongful death claim.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Divine Construction Co. v. Ohio-American Water Co. green ohioctapp · 1991 2 sentences 2009Co. , this court stated that "where the existence of the contract containing the arbitration clause is at issue, a question of fact arises which is subject to trial as requested by the parties." Id. at 316 , citing both R.C. 2711.03 and Colegrove v. Handler (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 142 . 2006Co. v. Ohio-American Water Co. (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 311, 316 , 599 N.E.2d 388 . {¶ 50} Assuming for the sake of argument that jurisdiction exists over the motion to vacate, the court may consider the merits of the motion and shall consider whether a contract for arbitration exists.	4	2001–2009
Colegrove v. Handler green ohioctapp · 1986 2 sentences 2009Co. , this court stated that "where the existence of the contract containing the arbitration clause is at issue, a question of fact arises which is subject to trial as requested by the parties." Id. at 316 , citing both R.C. 2711.03 and Colegrove v. Handler (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 142 . 2002Colegrove v. Handler (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 142, 144-145 , 517 N.E.2d 979 .	3	1991–2009
Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P. green ohio · 2011 2 sentences 2024Ohio 2002). {¶67} “To trigger the doctrine, a plaintiff's claims must seek to enforce duties that ‘arise from the contract containing the arbitration clause,’ not from other legal sources (such as a statute or tort law).” AtriCure at 527, citing Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 2011-Ohio-5262 ; Henderson v. Laws. 2018*Taylor, 130 Ohio St.3d 411 , 2011-Ohio-5262 , 958 N.E.2d 1203 at ¶ 33, citing Gerig, 95 Ohio St.3d 478 , 2002-Ohio-2581 , 769 N.E.2d 381 at ¶ 19.	2	2018–2024
McGuinea v. Ganley Nissan, Unpublished Decision (11-23-2005) green ohioctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2024Cuyahoga No. 86050, 2005-Ohio-6239 , the trial court denied the defendant’s motion for a stay of the proceedings because the movant failed to authenticate the contract containing the arbitration clause.	1	2024–2024
Trinity Health System v. Mdx Corp. green ohioctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2022Trinity Health System v. MDX Corp., 180 Ohio App.3d 815 , 2009-Ohio-417 , 907 N.E.2d 746 (7th Dist. 2022Trinity Health System v. MDX Corp., 180 Ohio App.3d 815 , 2009-Ohio-417 , 907 N.E.2d 746 (7th Dist.	1	2022–2022
Thomson-Csf, S.A. v. American Arbitration Association, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation green ca2 · 1995 1 sentence 2018Arbitration Assn., 64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir.1995). {¶18} Estoppel applies where “a nonsignatory who knowingly accepts the benefits of an agreement is estopped from denying a corresponding obligation to arbitrate.” I Sports v. IMG Worldwide, Inc., 157 Ohio App.3d 593 , 2004-Ohio-3631 , 813 N.E.2d 4, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing Thomson-CSF at 778 (estoppel analysis depends on whether the nonsignatory derived a direct benefit from the contract containing the arbitration clause such that acceptance of the benefit would also require acceptance of a contractual obligation).	1	2018–2018
Cleveland-Akron-Canton Advertising Cooperative v. Physician's Weight Loss Centers of America, Inc. green ohioctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2018“This doctrine ‘precludes a party from enjoying rights and benefits under a contract while at the same time avoiding its burdens and obligations.’” Physician’s Weight Loss, 184 Ohio App.3d 805 , 2009-Ohio-5699 , 922 N.E.2d 1012, at ¶ 15 , quoting InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 145 (1st Dist.2003). {¶19} In this case, United contends that because the FPA contains mandatory arbitration of any and all disputes between United and UH, Caresource must be compelled to arbitrate, even though it is not a signatory to the FPA, because Caresource seeks the benefit of the FPA, specifically that Uni 2018“This doctrine ‘precludes a party from enjoying rights and benefits under a contract while at the same time avoiding its burdens and obligations.’” Physician’s Weight Loss, 184 Ohio App.3d 805 , 2009-Ohio-5699 , 922 N.E.2d 1012, at ¶ 15 , quoting InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 145 (1st Dist.2003). {¶19} In this case, United contends that because the FPA contains mandatory arbitration of any and all disputes between United and UH, Caresource must be compelled to arbitrate, even though it is not a signatory to the FPA, because Caresource seeks the benefit of the FPA, specifically that Uni	1	2018–2018
Kelm v. Kelm green ohio · 1993 1 sentence 2017Kelm v. Kelm (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 26 , 27 * * ; Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984), 465 U.S. 1 , 10 * *.	1	2017–2017
Southland Corp. v. Keating green scotus · 1984 1 sentence 2017Kelm v. Kelm (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 26 , 27 * * ; Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984), 465 U.S. 1 , 10 * *.	1	2017–2017
Thompson v. Wing green ohio · 1994 1 sentence 2006Pursuant to Ohio jurisprudence, "a wrongful death action is an independent cause of action." Thompson v. Wing (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 176 , 183 (emphasis added).	1	2006–2006
Cross v. Carnes green ohioctapp · 1998 1 sentence 2002Cross v. Carnes (1998), 132 Ohio App.3d 157 , 164-165 .	1	2002–2002
Haller v. Borror Corp. green ohio · 1990 2 sentences 2001That particular claim related “ ‘not to the nature or purpose of the [contract], but to the facts inducing its execution.’ ” Id. at 502 , 692 N.E.2d at 578 , quoting Haller v. Borror Corp (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 10, 14 , 552 N.E.2d 207, 210-211 . 2001That particular claim related “ ‘not to the nature or purpose of the [contract], but to the facts inducing its execution.’ ” Id. at 502 , 692 N.E.2d at 578 , quoting Haller v. Borror Corp (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 10, 14 , 552 N.E.2d 207, 210-211 .	1	2001–2001

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2711.01 (7) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2711.02 (7) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2711.03 (7)

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.

Where else courts name it

FL 51 (1997–2025) TX 46 (2001–2023) CA 33 (1995–2025) AL 30 (1993–2025) OH 27 (1991–2024) NY 13 (1949–2020) IL 12 (1983–2025) NC 8 (2002–2024) WA 8 (2003–2024) IN 8 (1999–2017) MS 5 (2004–2011) DE 5 (2002–2023) LA 5 (2006–2024) WV 5 (2020–2021) SC 4 (2012–2023) OK 4 (2007–2011) MD 3 (2008–2012) GA 3 (2003–2026) HI 3 (2004–2020) CT 3 (1992–2007) NM 2 (2004–2005) MI 2 (2011–2016) MO 2 (1996–2006) NJ 2 (1998–2024) MN 2 (1972–1988)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check