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.
15 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Futures, Inc. v. Barrgreen2 sentences2026Second, “if it is apparent that the issue sought to be arbitrated is not within the ambit of the arbitration clause, the court should decide the arbitrability issue in favor of the opposing party, because there is no agreement to arbitrate.” Id. 2010The appellate court affirmed, applying the law set forth by our supreme court in Donaldson, 124 Ill. 2d at 445 (“if it is apparent that the issue sought to be arbitrated is not within the ambit of the arbitration clause, the court should decide the arbitrability issue in favor of the opposing party, because there is no agreement to arbitrate”). | 2 | 14 |
Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of Minnesotagreen1 sentence2026Third, where the parties disagree as to arbitrability and “ ‘the question of the parties’ intention as to such scope is reasonably debatable,’ ” “ ‘the rule [is that] the issue of arbitrability be initially determined by the arbitrators.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 447 (quoting Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 123 N.W.2d 371, 376-77 (Minn. 1963)). ¶ 17 It is not unlike the completion of a fourth-down play in football. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Noble
green
2 sentences2010The appellate court held that the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims were not within the ambit of the arbitration clause because “[t]he arbitration clause arose in a contract entered into between the same parties subsequent to the oral agreement and independent of it.” Johnson, 240 Ill. 2010The appellate court held that the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims were not within the ambit of the arbitration clause because “[t]he arbitration clause arose in a contract entered into between the same parties subsequent to the oral agreement and independent of it.” Johnson, 240 Ill. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Board of Trustees of Junior College District No. 508 v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600
green
2 sentences1993(Board of Trustees of Junior College District No. 508 v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600 (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 470 , 343 N.E.2d 473 .) Under section 2 of the Uniform Arbitration Act, the court should decide the arbitrability issue in cases where it is clear that the issue is within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and also when it is apparent that it is not within the ambit of the arbitration clause. 1993(Board of Trustees of Junior College District No. 508 v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600 (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 470 , 343 N.E.2d 473 .) Under section 2 of the Uniform Arbitration Act, the court should decide the arbitrability issue in cases where it is clear that the issue is within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and also when it is apparent that it is not within the ambit of the arbitration clause. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers
green
2 sentences1992Ed. 2d 648, 655 , 106 S. Ct. 1415, 1418 .) It is apparent here that the issue sought to be arbitrated in counts I and II is not within the ambit of the arbitration clause, and the trial court was correct in its ruling. 1992(A T & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America (1986), 475 U.S. 643, 648 , 89 L. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Roosevelt University v. Mayfair Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1988(See, e.g., Roosevelt University v. Mayfair Construction Co. (1975), 28 Ill. App.3d 1045, 1051 ; Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp. (1983), 298 Md. 96, 103-04 , 468 A.2d 91, 95 .) Similarly, if it is apparent that the issue sought to be arbitrated is not within the ambit of the arbitration clause, the court should decide the arbitrability issue in favor of the opposing party, because there is no agreement to arbitrate. 1988(See, e.g., Roosevelt University v. Mayfair Construction Co. (1975), 28 Ill. App. 3d 1045, 1051 ; Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp. (1983), 298 Md. 96, 103-04 , 468 A.2d 91, 95 .) Similarly, if it is apparent that the issue sought to be arbitrated is not within the ambit of the arbitration clause, the court should decide the arbitrability issue in favor of the opposing party, because there is no agreement to arbitrate. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Flood v. Country Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences1988(See, e.g., Flood, 41 Ill.2d at 93 ; Mayfair Construction Co., 28 Ill. App.3d at 1051 .) "Thus, the arbitrability issue emerges as essentially one of giving effect to the parties' expressed intention about the use of arbitration." (Henderson, Contractual Problems in the Enforcement of Agreements to Arbitrate Medical Malpractice, 58 Va. L. Rev. 947 , 972 (1972).) The paramount factor in determining the parties' intention is the scope of the arbitration clause in the contract. 1988(See, e.g., Flood, 41 Ill. 2d at 93 ; Mayfair Construction Co., 28 Ill. App. 3d at 1051 .) “Thus, the arbitrability issue emerges as essentially one of giving effect to the parties’ expressed intention about the use of arbitration.” (Henderson, Contractual Problems in the Enforcement of Agreements to Arbitrate Medical Malpractice, 58 Va. L. Rev. 947 , 972 (1972).) The paramount factor in determining the parties’ intention is the scope of the arbitration clause in the contract. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp.
green
2 sentences1988(See, e.g., Roosevelt University v. Mayfair Construction Co. (1975), 28 Ill. App.3d 1045, 1051 ; Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp. (1983), 298 Md. 96, 103-04 , 468 A.2d 91, 95 .) Similarly, if it is apparent that the issue sought to be arbitrated is not within the ambit of the arbitration clause, the court should decide the arbitrability issue in favor of the opposing party, because there is no agreement to arbitrate. 1988(See, e.g., Roosevelt University v. Mayfair Construction Co. (1975), 28 Ill. App.3d 1045, 1051 ; Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp. (1983), 298 Md. 96, 103-04 , 468 A.2d 91, 95 .) Similarly, if it is apparent that the issue sought to be arbitrated is not within the ambit of the arbitration clause, the court should decide the arbitrability issue in favor of the opposing party, because there is no agreement to arbitrate. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.