16 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corporationgreen2 sentences2012See Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 , 1464 (9th Cir.1983); In re Kinoshita & Co., 287 F.2d 951, 953 (2d Cir.1961). 1999See Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong *637 Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 , 1464 (9th Cir.1983); In re Kinoshita & Co., 287 F.2d 951, 953 (2d Cir.1961). | 2 | 2 |
cluster 253402green2 sentences2012See Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 , 1464 (9th Cir.1983); In re Kinoshita & Co., 287 F.2d 951, 953 (2d Cir.1961). 1999See Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong *637 Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 , 1464 (9th Cir.1983); In re Kinoshita & Co., 287 F.2d 951, 953 (2d Cir.1961). | 2 | 2 |
Seifert v. US Home Corp.green2 sentences2011See, e.g., Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp. 750 So.2d 633, 637 (Fla.1999) (recognizing that adding the phrase "relating to” to the phrase “arising out of” has the effect of broadening the scope of the arbitration clause). 2011See, e.g., Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp. 750 So.2d 633, 637 (Fla. 1999) (recognizing that adding the phrase "relating to" to the phrase "arising out of" has the effect of broadening the scope of the arbitration clause). [7] Although the concurring opinion states that the trial court erred in denying arbitration of the Second Amended Complaint, that opinion then goes on to address itself instead to the trial court's April 21, 2010, Order on Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, in which the trial court (1) denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, (2) granted Dobal leave to file her Second Amended | 1 | 4 |
Estate of Shambow v. Shambowgreen1 sentence2024In re Shambow’s Est., 15 So. 2d 837, 837 (Fla. 1943). 6 “apply[] general state-law principles of contract interpretation,” here, and put the arbitration provision on “equal footing” with any other contract, we apparently still must give “due regard . . . to the federal policy favoring arbitration,” resolving “ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself . . . in favor of arbitration.” Volt Info. | 1 | 1 |
Federal Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Florida, Inc.green1 sentence2023Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Fla., Inc., 687 So. 2d 1366, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Armas v. Prudential Securities, Inc.green1 sentence2021The signatories to the Agent Agreements expressly agreed that “any dispute arising out of or related in any way to the 7 solicitation, negotiation, inception or performance of this Agreement . . . shall be exclusively resolved . . . [by] arbitration.” This Court has recognized such language as permitting non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements. “[A]rbitration provisions containing the language, ‘arising out of or related to,’ in certain instances can be construed to include non-signatories.” Armas v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 842 So. 2d 210, 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLCgreen2 sentences2019Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 548 F.3d 379, 381 (5th Cir. 2008), is inapposite because the parties in Sherer did not challenge "that the claims would otherwise be within the scope of the arbitration clause '[h]ad the defendant signed the contract.' " (Alteration in original.) Instead, the sole issue in Sherer was "whether Sherer ha[d] agreed to arbitration with a nonsignatory, such as Green Tree." Id. 2019Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 548 F.3d 379, 381 (5th Cir. 2008), is inapposite because the parties in Sherer did not challenge "that the claims would otherwise be within the scope of the arbitration clause '[h]ad the defendant signed the contract.' " (Alteration in original.) Instead, the sole issue in Sherer was "whether Sherer ha[d] agreed to arbitration with a nonsignatory, such as Green Tree." Id. | 1 | 1 |
Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. Boldface Licensing + Branding, Inc.green2 sentences2018Therefore, even when a non- signatory can rely on equitable estoppel “to access [the arbitration] clause,” the non-signatory can compel arbitration only if the dispute at issue “falls within the scope of the arbitration clause.” Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. Boldface Licensing + Branding, Inc., 845 F.3d 1351, 1355 (11th Cir. 2017) (applying Florida law). 2018Therefore, even when a non-signatory can rely on equitable estoppel “to access [the arbitration] clause,” the non- signatory can compel arbitration only if the dispute at issue “falls within the scope of the arbitration clause.” Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. Boldface Licensing + Branding, Inc., 845 F.3d 1351, 1355 (11th Cir. 2017) (emphasis added) (applying Florida law). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.
green
2 sentences2024Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468 , 475–76 (1989) (internal citation omitted); see Moses H. 1996Sciences, Inc. v. Stanford Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 475-76 , 109 S.Ct. 1248, 1254 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989); Moses H. | 2 | 1996–2024 |
Beck Auto Sales, Inc. v. Asbury Jax Ford, LLC, and Lisa Marasco
green
2 sentences2024P'ship, LLP v. Rays Baseball Club, LLC, 371 So. 3d 988 , 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (holding that the scope of the arbitration clause is a matter of contractual interpretation requiring the examination of the plain language used by the parties in their contract (first quoting Beck Auto Sales, Inc., 249 So. 3d at 768 ; and then quoting Bailey, 309 So. 3d at 701)). 2024P'ship, LLP v. Rays Baseball Club, LLC, 371 So. 3d 988 , 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (holding that the scope of the arbitration clause is a matter of contractual interpretation requiring the examination of the plain language used by the parties in their contract (first quoting Beck Auto Sales, Inc., 249 So. 3d at 768 ; and then quoting Bailey, 309 So. 3d at 701)). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
American Recovery Corporation v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, Incorporated
green
1 sentence2011Recovery Corp. v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc., 96 F.3d 88 , 93 (4th Cir.1996) (quoting J.J. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
MEDIDENT CONSTRUCTION v. Chappell
green
1 sentence2005Because the buyers do not attack the validity of the arbitration clause, but instead seek to invalidate the entire agreement, “[t]he relief [the buyers seek] falls within the scope of the arbitration clause and should be submitted to arbitration.” Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Diez-Sierra v. Aguera
neutral
1 sentence2005We find the decision in Diez-Sierra v. Aguera, 762 So.2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), distinguishable on at least two grounds. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
M. Sylvain Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno
green
1 sentence2002"The clause must be interpreted to encompass only those situationssuch as fraud, mistake, duress and waiverthat can be applied neutrally on an international scale." Id. [10] Cases dealing with this last prong usually rely on the parties' citizenship; however, we do not have the benefit of that information and, therefore, we analyze the fourth requirement in terms of the insurance contract's reasonable relation with one or more foreign states. [11] The parties do not question the scope of the arbitration clause. [12] There is no evidence to suggest that Setton agreed to the policy terms as a | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ronbeck Const. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp.
green
1 sentence1993Old Dominion Insurance Co. v. Dependable Reinsurance Co., 472 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see generally, Florida Construction Law and Practice § 13.8 (2d ed.); Ronbeck Construction Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corporation, 592 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Old Dominion Ins. v. DEPENDABLE REINS.
green
1 sentence1993Old Dominion Insurance Co. v. Dependable Reinsurance Co., 472 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see generally, Florida Construction Law and Practice § 13.8 (2d ed.); Ronbeck Construction Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corporation, 592 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.