scope of the arbitration clause in Maryland

19 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland 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
Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp.green md · 1983 · cited in 10 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1990–2026 2 sentences 2019A dispute is not arbitrable, and arbitration proceedings should be stayed, “where no arbitration agreement exists, either in fact or because the controversy sought to be arbitrated is not within the scope of the arbitration clause of the contract.” Gold Coast Mall, 298 Md. at 106 (quoting Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 123 N.W.2d 371, 376 (Minn. 1963)) (emphasis added). 2019Even if a valid agreement to arbitrate has been formed and the right to arbitrate has not subsequently been waived, courts must still find that no arbitration agreement “exists” under CJP § 3-208 if “the controversy sought to be arbitrated is not within the scope of the arbitration clause of the contract.” Gold Coast Mall, 298 Md. at 106 (cleaned up).	3	10
Allstate Insurance v. Stinebaughgreen md · 2003 · cited in 4 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2003–2022 2 sentences 2022Co., 374 Md. at 643 , 824 A.2d at 94 , we distilled from Gold Coast Mall “the rules for determining whether court or arbitrator determines arbitrability where the arbitrability issue is the scope of the arbitration clause and its applicability to the dispute at hand[,]” stating: First, in Gold Coast Mall, we declared that if an arbitration clause is clear, it is initially for the courts to determine whether the subject matter of a dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause. 2022Co., 374 Md. at 643 , 824 A.2d at 94 , we distilled from Gold Coast Mall “the rules for determining whether court or arbitrator determines arbitrability where the arbitrability issue is the scope of the arbitration clause and its applicability to the dispute at hand[,]” stating: First, in Gold Coast Mall, we declared that if an arbitration clause is clear, it is initially for the courts to determine whether the subject matter of a dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause.	2	4
Bel Pre Medical Center, Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc.green mdctspecapp · 1974 · cited in 4 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1983–2008 2 sentences 2008Ctr., Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc. 21 Md.App. 307, 321 , 320 A.2d 558 (1974); aff'd, 274 Md. 307 , 334 A.2d 526 (1975); see also Gold Coast Mall, Inc., supra, 298 Md. at 104 , 468 A.2d 91 . 2008Ctr., Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc. 21 Md.App. 307, 321 , 320 A.2d 558 (1974); aff'd, 274 Md. 307 , 334 A.2d 526 (1975); see also Gold Coast Mall, Inc., supra, 298 Md. at 104 , 468 A.2d 91 .	1	4
NRT Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Innovative Properties, Inc.green mdctspecapp · 2002 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2003–2007 2 sentences 2007When considering whether a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration clause, a court must find “reliable evidence from the language actually employed in the contract that the parties intended the disputed issue to be the subject of arbitration, the intent of the parties being the controlling 306 factor.” Id. at 667 , 810 A.2d 519 (quoting NRT Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Innovative Properties, Inc., 144 Md.App. 268 , 280, 797 A.2d 824 (2002)) (citations omitted). 2004*Is There An Agreement to Arbitrate In Maryland, there is “a strong legislative policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements.” NRT Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Innovative Properties, Inc., 144 Md.App. 263, 278 , 797 A.2d 824 (2002).	1	3
Crown Oil and Wax Co. of Delaware, Inc. v. Glen Construction Co. of Virginia, Inc.green md · 1990 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1994–2026 2 sentences 2026App. at 401 (holding that courts should compel arbitration of a dispute unless “the dispute clearly lies beyond the scope of the arbitration clause at issue.”). 27 When an arbitration clause broadly calls for the arbitration of any and all disputes arising out of the contract, all disputes are considered to be arbitrable “unless expressly and specifically excluded,” thereby “promot[ing] the legislative policy favoring arbitration and leav[ing] the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrators.” Crown Oil, 320 Md. at 560 . 1994Id.	1	2
Gannett Fleming, Inc. v. Corman Const.green mdctspecapp · 2019 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 2 sentences 2026Accordingly, we conclude that none of Dr. Kyere’s claims against the Appellees are clearly “beyond the scope of the arbitration clause at issue.” Gannett Fleming, Inc. v. Corman Constr., Inc., 243 Md. 2026Consequently, although we conclude that none of Dr. Kyere’s claims against the Appellees were clearly “beyond the scope of the arbitration clause at issue,” Gannett Fleming 243 Md.	1	1
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnershipgreen md · 1997 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026See Hartford, 346 Md. at 127 .	1	1
Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of Minnesotagreen minn · 1963 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019A dispute is not arbitrable, and arbitration proceedings should be stayed, “where no arbitration agreement exists, either in fact or because the controversy sought to be arbitrated is not within the scope of the arbitration clause of the contract.” Gold Coast Mall, 298 Md. at 106 (quoting Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 123 N.W.2d 371, 376 (Minn. 1963)) (emphasis added).	1	1
Rourke v. Amchem Products, Inc.green md · 2004 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See also Rourke v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 384 Md. 329 , 354 n. 12, 863 A.2d 926 (2004); Gold Coast Mall, Inc., 298 Md. at 107, 468 A.2d 91 ; Nowak v. NAHB Research Ctr., Inc., 157 Md.App. 24, 34-36 , 848 A.2d 705 (2004). 2010See also Rourke v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 384 Md. 329 , 354 n. 12, 863 A.2d 926 (2004); Gold Coast Mall, Inc., 298 Md. at 107, 468 A.2d 91 ; Nowak v. NAHB Research Ctr., Inc., 157 Md.App. 24, 34-36 , 848 A.2d 705 (2004).	1	1
Auction & Estate Representatives, Inc. v. Ashtongreen md · 1999 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003See Stinebaugh, 374 Md. at 643 , 824 A.2d 87 . “[W]ords in an agreement are ambiguous if they are susceptible of more than one meaning to a reasonable person.” NRT Mid-Atlantic, 144 Md.App. at 284 , 797 A.2d 824 (citing Auction & Estate Representatives, Inc. v. Ashton, 354 Md. 333, 340 , 731 A.2d 441 (1999)). 2003See Stinebaugh, 374 Md. at 643 , 824 A.2d 87 . “[W]ords in an agreement are ambiguous if they are susceptible of more than one meaning to a reasonable person.” NRT Mid-Atlantic, 144 Md.App. at 284 , 797 A.2d 824 (citing Auction & Estate Representatives, Inc. v. Ashton, 354 Md. 333, 340 , 731 A.2d 441 (1999)).	1	1
Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corporation of Americagreen minn · 1972 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 2 sentences 1983E.g., Bel Pre Medical Center, Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc., 21 Md.App. 307, 321 , 320 A.2d 558, 566 (1974), modified on other grounds, 274 Md. 307 , 334 A.2d 526 (1975); Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334, 341, 347 , 197 N.W.2d 448, 452, 456 (1972). 1983E.g., Bel Pre Medical Center, Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc., 21 Md.App. 307, 321 , 320 A.2d 558, 566 (1974), modified on other grounds, 274 Md. 307 , 334 A.2d 526 (1975); Atcas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of America, 292 Minn. 334, 341, 347 , 197 N.W.2d 448, 452, 456 (1972).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (14)

Case	Cited	Years
Frederick Contractors, Inc. v. Bel Pre Medical Center, Inc. green md · 1975 2 sentences 2008Ctr., Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc. 21 Md.App. 307, 321 , 320 A.2d 558 (1974); aff'd, 274 Md. 307 , 334 A.2d 526 (1975); see also Gold Coast Mall, Inc., supra, 298 Md. at 104 , 468 A.2d 91 . 2008Ctr., Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc. 21 Md.App. 307, 321 , 320 A.2d 558 (1974); aff'd, 274 Md. 307 , 334 A.2d 526 (1975); see also Gold Coast Mall, Inc., supra, 298 Md. at 104 , 468 A.2d 91 .	2	1983–2008
Access Funding v. Linton green md · 2022 1 sentence 2026Access Funding, 482 Md. at 642 .	1	2026–2026
Griggs v. Evans green mdctspecapp · 2012 1 sentence 2019This is because “[w]hether the party seeking arbitration is right or wrong is a question of contract application and interpretation . . . , and the court should not deprive the party seeking arbitration of the arbitrator’s skilled judgment by attempting to resolve the ambiguity.” Gold Coast Mall, 298 Md. at 107 (citation omitted).11 11 In deciding that the dispute in this case was substantively arbitrable, the circuit court relied on the “significant relationship” test from Griggs, 205 Md.	1	2019–2019
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore Fire Fighters green mdctspecapp · 1992 1 sentence 2018App. at 536 , 766 A.2d 219 (citing Fire Fighters I , 93 Md.	1	2018–2018
Mayor of Baltimore v. Baltimore City Firefighters Local 734 green mdctspecapp · 2001 2 sentences 2018We observed that in Fire Fighters I , this Court held that "notwithstanding the broad language" in the City Charter, "some management rights are excluded from the scope of the arbitration clause." Firefighters II , 136 Md. 2018App. at 536 , 766 A.2d 219 (citing Fire Fighters I , 93 Md.	1	2018–2018
American Recovery Corporation v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, Incorporated green ca4 · 1996 1 sentence 2012Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corporation, 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), the Court announced its “healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration” and went on to say that the Federal Arbitration Act “establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitration issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.” More recently, the Fourth Circuit reiterated in	1	2012–2012
Holmes v. Coverall North America, Inc. green md · 1994 2 sentences 2012This may happen (1) when the parties have agreed to arbitrate, but the scope of the arbitration clause is unclear, making it necessary to interpret the entire contract, Gold Coast Mall, 298 Md. at 107-08 , 468 A.2d at 97 ; or (2) when a party challenges the validity of an arbitration clause based on some irregularity of the entire contract, which also requires inquiring into the merits of the dispute, Holmes, 336 Md. at 534 , 649 A.2d at 365 . 2012This may happen (1) when the parties have agreed to arbitrate, but the scope of the arbitration clause is unclear, making it necessary to interpret the entire contract, Gold Coast Mall, 298 Md. at 107-08 , 468 A.2d at 97 ; or (2) when a party challenges the validity of an arbitration clause based on some irregularity of the entire contract, which also requires inquiring into the merits of the dispute, Holmes, 336 Md. at 534 , 649 A.2d at 365 .	1	2012–2012
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2012Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corporation, 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), the Court announced its “healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration” and went on to say that the Federal Arbitration Act “establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitration issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.” More recently, the Fourth Circuit reiterated in 2012Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corporation, 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 , 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), the Court announced its “healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration” and went on to say that the Federal Arbitration Act “establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitration issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.” More recently, the Fourth Circuit reiterated in	1	2012–2012
Nowak v. NAHB RESEARCH CENTER, INC. green mdctspecapp · 2004 2 sentences 2010See also Rourke v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 384 Md. 329 , 354 n. 12, 863 A.2d 926 (2004); Gold Coast Mall, Inc., 298 Md. at 107, 468 A.2d 91 ; Nowak v. NAHB Research Ctr., Inc., 157 Md.App. 24, 34-36 , 848 A.2d 705 (2004). 2010See also Rourke v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 384 Md. 329 , 354 n. 12, 863 A.2d 926 (2004); Gold Coast Mall, Inc., 298 Md. at 107, 468 A.2d 91 ; Nowak v. NAHB Research Ctr., Inc., 157 Md.App. 24, 34-36 , 848 A.2d 705 (2004).	1	2010–2010
MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklin green ca11 · 1999 1 sentence 2008Id.	1	2008–2008
Contract Construction, Inc. v. Power Technology Center Ltd. Partnership green mdctspecapp · 1994 2 sentences 2008Accordingly, “it is only when the matter in dispute is unequivocally outside the scope of the arbitration clause that a motion to compel arbitration may be denied and litigation be allowed to proceed.” Id. at 178-79 , 640 A.2d 251 . 2008Accordingly, “it is only when the matter in dispute is unequivocally outside the scope of the arbitration clause that a motion to compel arbitration may be denied and litigation be allowed to proceed.” Id. at 178-79 , 640 A.2d 251 .	1	2008–2008
Montgomery County v. Fraternal Order of Police Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc. green mdctspecapp · 2002 2 sentences 2007When considering whether a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration clause, a court must find “reliable evidence from the language actually employed in the contract that the parties intended the disputed issue to be the subject of arbitration, the intent of the parties being the controlling 306 factor.” Id. at 667 , 810 A.2d 519 (quoting NRT Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Innovative Properties, Inc., 144 Md.App. 268 , 280, 797 A.2d 824 (2002)) (citations omitted). 2007When considering whether a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration clause, a court must find “reliable evidence from the language actually employed in the contract that the parties intended the disputed issue to be the subject of arbitration, the intent of the parties being the controlling 306 factor.” Id. at 667 , 810 A.2d 519 (quoting NRT Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Innovative Properties, Inc., 144 Md.App. 268 , 280, 797 A.2d 824 (2002)) (citations omitted).	1	2007–2007
Goebel v. Blocks & Marbles Brand Toys, Inc. green indctapp · 1991 1 sentence 1994Thus, the court noted that, in determining whether an agreement to arbitrate exists, the dispute often falls into two categories: “(1) issues relating to the formation of the arbitration agreement, which should be decided by the court, such as a claim of novation, or an allegation that the agreement is void for lack of mutual consent ...; and, (2) issues arising after the formation of the arbitration agreement, which should be referred to arbitration, such as rescission, fraud in the inducement, waiver, and termination of the contract.” Holmes, 98 Md.App. at 530 , 633 A.2d at 937 (citing Goebe	1	1994–1994
Holmes v. Coverall North America, Inc. green mdctspecapp · 1993 2 sentences 1994Where the language of the arbitration clause is clear, and it is plain that the dispute sought to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, arbitration should be compelled.’ ” Holmes, 98 Md.App. at 525-26 , 633 A.2d at 935 (quoting Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp., 298 Md. 96, 104 , 468 A.2d 91 (1983) (citations omitted)). 1994Where the language of the arbitration clause is clear, and it is plain that the dispute sought to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, arbitration should be compelled.’ ” Holmes, 98 Md.App. at 525-26 , 633 A.2d at 935 (quoting Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp., 298 Md. 96, 104 , 468 A.2d 91 (1983) (citations omitted)).	1	1994–1994

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 9u.s.c.1 (4) MD § Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-206 (3) USC § 9u.s.c.2 (3)

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

TX 83 (1997–2025) IL 74 (1976–2026) OH 73 (1996–2025) CA 52 (1979–2025) NY 36 (1956–2024) MN 25 (1975–2004) NJ 23 (1990–2022) PA 23 (1925–2026) SC 20 (1993–2021) MD 19 (1983–2026) AL 18 (1995–2013) FL 16 (1993–2024) CO 13 (1977–2015) MS 12 (2000–2017) MO 7 (2008–2016) MI 7 (1990–2026) CT 6 (1991–2009) GA 6 (2003–2025) IN 6 (2004–2012) LA 5 (2003–2016) NM 5 (2006–2024) TN 5 (2001–2015) NC 5 (1985–2011) VA 3 (1996–2011) UT 3 (2013–2023) WI 3 (2015–2015) AZ 3 (2012–2014) WA 3 (1998–2021) OR 3 (2005–2007) MT 2 (1986–1993) DE 2 (2008–2017) ME 2 (1993–2020) AK 2 (2005–2013) DC 2 (2013–2014) HI 2 (2018–2020) MA 2 (1992–2009) ID 2 (2003–2010)

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