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.
19 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workersgreen2 sentences2018In the case of a broad arbitration provision, “[i]n the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, . . . only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can prevail.” Id. (quoting AT&T Tech., Inc. v. Commc’n Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986)). 2015The United States Supreme Court has held that in "the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, we think only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can prevail." ATT Technologies, Inc. v. Communication Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986) (citing United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 584 (1960)). | 6 | 15 |
United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.green2 sentences2015The United States Supreme Court has held that in "the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, we think only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can prevail." ATT Technologies, Inc. v. Communication Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986) (citing United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 584 (1960)). 2010In such cases, “[i]n the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, we think only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can prevail.” Id. (citing United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 584-85 , 80 S.Ct. 1347 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960)). | 2 | 9 |
FD Frontier Drilling (Cyprus) Ltd. Frontier Drilling USA, Inc., Frontier Drilling AS And Noble Drilling (U.S.) L.L.C. v. Steve Didmongreen1 sentence2019Broad arbitration clauses embrace “all disputes between the parties having a significant relationship to the contract, regardless of the label attached to the dispute.” FD Frontier Drilling (Cyprus), Ltd. v. Didmon, 438 S.W.3d 688, 695 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied); see also Saxa Inc. v. DFD Architect. | 1 | 1 |
Strauss v. Silvercup Bakersgreen1 sentence2015Strauss v. Silvercup Bakers, 353 F.2d 555, 557 (2d Cir. 1965). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
BDO Seidman, LLP v. J.A. Green Development Corp.
green
2 sentences2019In such cases, when there is no express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, “only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can prevail.” Id. 2018In the case of a broad arbitration provision, “[i]n the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, . . . only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can prevail.” Id. (quoting AT&T Tech., Inc. v. Commc’n Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986)). | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Ascendant Anesthesia Pllc v. Abazi
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.