Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant — emailed to you with setup instructions, and always available under that icon.
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.
20 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zabinski v. Bright Acres Associatesgreen2 sentences2016“Any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Id. (quoting Zabinski, 346 S.C. at 597 , 553 S.E.2d at 118 ). “[E]ven if the court finds that a claim is outside the scope of the arbitration clause, the clause may still apply.” Partain, 386 S.C. at 492 , 689 S.E.2d at 604 . 2016“Any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Id. (quoting Zabinski, 346 S.C. at 597 , 553 S.E.2d at 118 ). “[E]ven if the court finds that a claim is outside the scope of the arbitration clause, the clause may still apply.” Partain, 386 S.C. at 492 , 689 S.E.2d at 604 . | 3 | 12 |
D. Joseph Long v. Silvergreen2 sentences2004See Zabinski v. Bright Acres Assocs., 346 S.C. 580, 597-98 , 553 S.E.2d 110, 119 (2001) (holding where the partnership agreement provided all claims arising from the partnership agreement were to be arbitrated, any torts related to the partnership agreement were also matters for arbitration); Long v. Silver, 248 F.3d 309, 316 (4th Cir.2001) (holding claims are within the scope of the arbitration clause if a “significant relationship” exists between the asserted claims and the contract in which the arbitration clause is contained). 2004See, e.g. , Long v. Silver , 248 F.3d 309, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding non-signatory could compel arbitration because the claims against the non-signatory parent corporation fell within the scope of the arbitration clause signed by the employee); Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc. , 10 F.3d 753, 758 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that because claims against the non-signatory were intimately founded in and intertwined with a contract containing an arbitration clause, signatory was estopped from refusing to arbitrate those claims); J.J. | 3 | 4 |
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.green2 sentences1993The Barbier court applied general state law principles of contract interpretation in order to ascertain the parties’ intent in including the choice-of-law provision in the agreement, “giving due regard to the federal policy favoring arbitration *427 and resolving any ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself in favor of arbitration.” Id.; see also Volt, 489 U.S. at 475 , 109 S.Ct. at 1254 , 103 L.Ed. (2d) at 498 (in applying general state-law principles of contract interpretation to the interpretation of an arbitration agreement within the scope of FAA, due regard must be gi 1993The Barbier court applied general state law principles of contract interpretation in order to ascertain the parties’ intent in including the choice-of-law provision in the agreement, “giving due regard to the federal policy favoring arbitration *427 and resolving any ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself in favor of arbitration.” Id.; see also Volt, 489 U.S. at 475 , 109 S.Ct. at 1254 , 103 L.Ed. (2d) at 498 (in applying general state-law principles of contract interpretation to the interpretation of an arbitration agreement within the scope of FAA, due regard must be gi | 2 | 4 |
American Recovery Corporation v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, Incorporatedgreen2 sentences2020Recovery, 96 F.3d at 94). 2016Recovery, 96 F.3d at 94). | 2 | 3 |
Landers v. Federal Deposit Insurancegreen2 sentences2021"The trial court found that only Landers' breach of contract claim was subject to the arbitration provision, while his other four causes of action comprised of several tort and corporate claims were not within the scope of the arbitration clause." Id. 2020This "'heavy presumption of arbitrability requires that when the scope of the arbitration clause is open to question, a court must decide the question in favor of arbitration.'" Id. at 109 , 739 S.E.2d at 213 (emphasis added) (quoting Am. | 1 | 3 |
cluster 515742green2 sentences2020"In applying this standard, th[e appellate c]ourt 'must determine whether the factual allegations underlying the claim are within the scope of the arbitration clause, regardless of the legal label assigned to the claim.'" Id. (emphasis added) (quoting J.J. 2013In applying this standard, this Court “must determine whether the factual allegations underlying the claim are within the scope of the arbitration clause, regardless of the legal label assigned to the claim.” Id. at 319 ; Zabinski, 346 S.C. at 597 , 553 S.E.2d at 118 . | 1 | 3 |
Stokes v. Metropolitan Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2004Co., 351 S.C. 606, 610 , 571 S.E.2d 711, 714 (Ct.App.2002) (quoting Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468 , 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989)). 2004Co., 351 S.C. 606, 610 , 571 S.E.2d 711, 714 (Ct.App.2002) (quoting Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468 , 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989)). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Conseco Finance Servicing Corp.green2 sentences2007Id. at 570. 2007Id. at 570. | 1 | 1 |
Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc., Del Monte Corporation, Nabisco Brands, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc.green1 sentence2004See, e.g. , Long v. Silver , 248 F.3d 309, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding non-signatory could compel arbitration because the claims against the non-signatory parent corporation fell within the scope of the arbitration clause signed by the employee); Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc. , 10 F.3d 753, 758 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that because claims against the non-signatory were intimately founded in and intertwined with a contract containing an arbitration clause, signatory was estopped from refusing to arbitrate those claims); J.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hinson v. JUSCO CO., LTD.
green
2 sentences2016Zabinski, 346 S.C. at 597 , 553 S.E.2d at 118 (citing Hinson v. Jusco Co., 868 F.Supp. 145 (D.S.C. 1994); S.C. 2016Zabinski, 346 S.C. at 597 , 553 S.E.2d at 118 (citing Hinson v. Jusco Co., 868 F.Supp. 145 (D.S.C. 1994); S.C. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Aiken v. World Finance Corp. of SC
green
2 sentences2016Corp. of South Carolina, 373 S.C. 144 , 644 S.E.2d 705 (2007); Chassereau v. Global Sun Pools, Inc., 373 S.C. 168 , 644 S.E.2d 718 (2007); Simpson v. World conduct, namely, the intentional and unforeseeable conduct of JWH in failing to disclose concealed contamination on the Property, the arbitration clause was unenforceable.4 The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's finding that the scope of the arbitration clause was restricted to Warranty claims and declined to address the circuit court's application of the outrageous torts exception doctrine. 2016Corp. of South Carolina, 373 S.C. 144 , 644 S.E.2d 705 (2007); Chassereau v. Global Sun Pools, Inc., 373 S.C. 168 , 644 S.E.2d 718 (2007); Simpson v. World conduct, namely, the intentional and unforeseeable conduct of JWH in failing to disclose concealed contamination on the Property, the arbitration clause was unenforceable.4 The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's finding that the scope of the arbitration clause was restricted to Warranty claims and declined to address the circuit court's application of the outrageous torts exception doctrine. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Chassereau v. Global-Sun Pools, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Corp. of South Carolina, 373 S.C. 144 , 644 S.E.2d 705 (2007); Chassereau v. Global Sun Pools, Inc., 373 S.C. 168 , 644 S.E.2d 718 (2007); Simpson v. World conduct, namely, the intentional and unforeseeable conduct of JWH in failing to disclose concealed contamination on the Property, the arbitration clause was unenforceable.4 The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's finding that the scope of the arbitration clause was restricted to Warranty claims and declined to address the circuit court's application of the outrageous torts exception doctrine. 2016Corp. of South Carolina, 373 S.C. 144 , 644 S.E.2d 705 (2007); Chassereau v. Global Sun Pools, Inc., 373 S.C. 168 , 644 S.E.2d 718 (2007); Simpson v. World conduct, namely, the intentional and unforeseeable conduct of JWH in failing to disclose concealed contamination on the Property, the arbitration clause was unenforceable.4 The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's finding that the scope of the arbitration clause was restricted to Warranty claims and declined to address the circuit court's application of the outrageous torts exception doctrine. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Partain v. Upstate Automotive Group
green
2 sentences2016“Any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Id. (quoting Zabinski, 346 S.C. at 597 , 553 S.E.2d at 118 ). “[E]ven if the court finds that a claim is outside the scope of the arbitration clause, the clause may still apply.” Partain, 386 S.C. at 492 , 689 S.E.2d at 604 . 2016“Any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Id. (quoting Zabinski, 346 S.C. at 597 , 553 S.E.2d at 118 ). “[E]ven if the court finds that a claim is outside the scope of the arbitration clause, the clause may still apply.” Partain, 386 S.C. at 492 , 689 S.E.2d at 604 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
green
2 sentences2013Co., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)); accord Zabinski, 346 S.C. at 598 , 553 S.E.2d at 118 . “ ‘The heavy presumption of arbitrability requires that when the scope of the arbitration clause is open to question, a court must decide the question in favor of arbitration.’ ” Am. 2013Co., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)); accord Zabinski, 346 S.C. at 598 , 553 S.E.2d at 118 . “ ‘The heavy presumption of arbitrability requires that when the scope of the arbitration clause is open to question, a court must decide the question in favor of arbitration.’ ” Am. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010Accordingly, the Court held "the inclusion of the MMWA in the scope of the arbitration clause is unenforceable as a matter of public policy.” Simpson, 373 S.C. at 33 , 644 S.E.2d at 673 . 5 . 2010Accordingly, the Court held "the inclusion of the MMWA in the scope of the arbitration clause is unenforceable as a matter of public policy.” Simpson, 373 S.C. at 33 , 644 S.E.2d at 673 . 5 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
South Carolina Public Service Authority v. Great Western Coal (Kentucky) Inc.
green
1 sentence2008“Any doubts concerning the scope of the arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.
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.