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.
14 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2010However, “[t]he concept of ‘intertwining’ necessarily presupposes that the signatory to the arbitration agreement is or will be engaged in an arbitration proceeding with the plaintiff.” Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Kennedy, 774 So.2d 540, 545 (Ala.2000); see also Auvil v. Johnson, 806 So.2d 343, 350 (Ala.2001) (“The doctrine of intertwining extends the benefits of an arbitration agreement to a nonsignatory only if the claims against him are intertwined with the claims against a signatory who is going to arbitration.”); Sharman, 828 So.2d at 893-94 (“[T]he doctrine of intertwining does not ap 2010However, “[t]he concept of ‘intertwining’ necessarily presupposes that the signatory to the arbitration agreement is or will be engaged in an arbitration proceeding with the plaintiff.” Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Kennedy, 774 So.2d 540, 545 (Ala.2000); see also Auvil v. Johnson, 806 So.2d 343, 350 (Ala.2001) (“The doctrine of intertwining extends the benefits of an arbitration agreement to a nonsignatory only if the claims against him are intertwined with the claims against a signatory who is going to arbitration.”); Sharman, 828 So.2d at 893-94 (“[T]he doctrine of intertwining does not ap | 3 | 4 |
Ex Parte Tony's Towing, Inc.green2 sentences2007At no point did Thomson indicate a willingness to arbitrate with E S. Therefore, the district court properly determined these estoppel cases to be inapposite and insufficient justification for binding Thomson to an agreement that it never signed." "` Thomson-CSF, S.A. [v. American Arbitration Ass'n] , 64 F.3d [773 ] at 779 [(2d Cir. 1995)] (internal citations omitted).' " 269 F.3d at 201-02 (some emphasis original; some emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). [The signatories attempting to compel arbitration] are therefore not in a position to insist that [the nonsignatory] submit to arbitration 2003Dunbar and the Williams defendants are therefore not in a position to insist that Tony's submit to arbitration based upon the doctrine of intertwining." Ex parte Tony's Towing, Inc., 825 So.2d at 98-99 . | 2 | 4 |
Conseco Finance Corporation v. Sharmangreen2 sentences2010However, “[t]he concept of ‘intertwining’ necessarily presupposes that the signatory to the arbitration agreement is or will be engaged in an arbitration proceeding with the plaintiff.” Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Kennedy, 774 So.2d 540, 545 (Ala.2000); see also Auvil v. Johnson, 806 So.2d 343, 350 (Ala.2001) (“The doctrine of intertwining extends the benefits of an arbitration agreement to a nonsignatory only if the claims against him are intertwined with the claims against a signatory who is going to arbitration.”); Sharman, 828 So.2d at 893-94 (“[T]he doctrine of intertwining does not ap 2005See Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Kennedy , 774 So.2d 540 , 545 (Ala. 2000), observing that `"intertwining" requires at least two threads to weave together — one cannot intertwine a single thread.'" 828 So.2d at 893-94 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Stamey v. Eastergreen2 sentences2002See Ex parte Stamey , 776 So.2d 85 , 89 (Ala. 2000). 2002See Ex parte Stamey, 776 So.2d 85, 89 (Ala.2000). | 2 | 2 |
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrdgreen2 sentences1987Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 , 105 S.Ct. 1238 , 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985). 1987Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 , 105 S.Ct. 1238 , 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985). | 1 | 3 |
Carriage Homes v. Channellgreen1 sentence2010However, “[t]he concept of ‘intertwining’ necessarily presupposes that the signatory to the arbitration agreement is or will be engaged in an arbitration proceeding with the plaintiff.” Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Kennedy, 774 So.2d 540, 545 (Ala.2000); see also Auvil v. Johnson, 806 So.2d 343, 350 (Ala.2001) (“The doctrine of intertwining extends the benefits of an arbitration agreement to a nonsignatory only if the claims against him are intertwined with the claims against a signatory who is going to arbitration.”); Sharman, 828 So.2d at 893-94 (“[T]he doctrine of intertwining does not ap | 1 | 1 |
Auvil v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2010However, “[t]he concept of ‘intertwining’ necessarily presupposes that the signatory to the arbitration agreement is or will be engaged in an arbitration proceeding with the plaintiff.” Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Kennedy, 774 So.2d 540, 545 (Ala.2000); see also Auvil v. Johnson, 806 So.2d 343, 350 (Ala.2001) (“The doctrine of intertwining extends the benefits of an arbitration agreement to a nonsignatory only if the claims against him are intertwined with the claims against a signatory who is going to arbitration.”); Sharman, 828 So.2d at 893-94 (“[T]he doctrine of intertwining does not ap | 1 | 1 |
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber and Resin Intermediates, S.A.S.green1 sentence2007At no point did Thomson indicate a willingness to arbitrate with E S. Therefore, the district court properly determined these estoppel cases to be inapposite and insufficient justification for binding Thomson to an agreement that it never signed." "` Thomson-CSF, S.A. [v. American Arbitration Ass'n] , 64 F.3d [773 ] at 779 [(2d Cir. 1995)] (internal citations omitted).' " 269 F.3d at 201-02 (some emphasis original; some emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). [The signatories attempting to compel arbitration] are therefore not in a position to insist that [the nonsignatory] submit to arbitration | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Godsey
neutral
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Ex parte Tony's Towing, Inc. , 825 So.2d 96 (Ala. 2002); Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Godsey , [ 824 So.2d 713 (Ala. 2001)]; Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Boykin , 807 So.2d 524 (Ala. 2001). ". . . . ". . . [T]he doctrine of estoppel is applicable only to estop a signatory from avoiding arbitration. 2002Although this Court has recognized certain situations in which an agreement to arbitrate may extend to nonsignatories, see, e.g., Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Godsey, 824 So.2d 713 (Ala.2001) (discussing third-party beneficiaries and the doctrine of intertwining), those limited exceptions are not applicable in this case. | 2 | 2002–2007 |
Ex Parte Roberson
green
1 sentence2010However, “[t]he concept of ‘intertwining’ necessarily presupposes that the signatory to the arbitration agreement is or will be engaged in an arbitration proceeding with the plaintiff.” Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Kennedy, 774 So.2d 540, 545 (Ala.2000); see also Auvil v. Johnson, 806 So.2d 343, 350 (Ala.2001) (“The doctrine of intertwining extends the benefits of an arbitration agreement to a nonsignatory only if the claims against him are intertwined with the claims against a signatory who is going to arbitration.”); Sharman, 828 So.2d at 893-94 (“[T]he doctrine of intertwining does not ap | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Boykin
green
1 sentence2007See, e.g., Ex parte Tony's Towing, Inc. , 825 So.2d 96 (Ala. 2002); Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Godsey , [ 824 So.2d 713 (Ala. 2001)]; Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Boykin , 807 So.2d 524 (Ala. 2001). ". . . . ". . . [T]he doctrine of estoppel is applicable only to estop a signatory from avoiding arbitration. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
SouthTrust Bank v. Ford
green
1 sentence2007This Court discussed the doctrine of intertwining in SouthTrust Bank v. Ford , 835 So.2d 990 (Ala. 2002): "The doctrine of intertwining is applicable where arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are so closely related that the party to a controversy subject to arbitration is equitably estopped from denying the arbitrability of the related claim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.