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.
12 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 2001–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
PER Group, L.P. v. Dava Oncology, L.P.green2 sentences2022See, e.g., Saxa Inc. v. DFD Architecture Inc., 312 S.W.3d 224, 228 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied) (discussing AAA rules); PER Group, L.P. v. Dava Oncology, L.P., 294 S.W.3d 378, 386 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2009, no pet.) (discussing Commercial Arbitration Rule R-7). –13– all defenses to arbitration, including validity of the arbitration provision, were delegated to the arbitrator. 2021See, e.g., Saxa Inc. v. DFD Architecture Inc., 312 S.W.3d 224, 228 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied) (discussing AAA rules); PER Group, L.P. v. Dava Oncology, L.P., 294 S.W.3d 378, 386 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2009, no pet.) (discussing Commercial Arbitration Rule R-7). –13– all defenses to arbitration, including validity of the arbitration provision, were delegated to the arbitrator. | 3 | 3 |
Saxa Inc. v. Dfd Architecture Inc.green2 sentences2022See, e.g., Saxa Inc. v. DFD Architecture Inc., 312 S.W.3d 224, 228 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied) (discussing AAA rules); PER Group, L.P. v. Dava Oncology, L.P., 294 S.W.3d 378, 386 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2009, no pet.) (discussing Commercial Arbitration Rule R-7). –13– all defenses to arbitration, including validity of the arbitration provision, were delegated to the arbitrator. 2021See, e.g., Saxa Inc. v. DFD Architecture Inc., 312 S.W.3d 224, 228 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied) (discussing AAA rules); PER Group, L.P. v. Dava Oncology, L.P., 294 S.W.3d 378, 386 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2009, no pet.) (discussing Commercial Arbitration Rule R-7). –13– all defenses to arbitration, including validity of the arbitration provision, were delegated to the arbitrator. | 3 | 3 |
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingstongreen2 sentences2001See generally John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 557 , 84 S.Ct. 909 , 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964). 2001See generally John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 557 , 84 S.Ct. 909 , 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964). | 2 | 2 |
Jody James Farms, Jv v. the Altman Group, Inc. and Laurie Diazgreen2 sentences2026Courts will enforce a “clear and unmistakable” delegation, and “as a general rule, an agreement to arbitrate disputes in accordance with rules providing that the arbitrator ‘shall have the power’ to determine ‘the arbitrability of any claim’ incorporates those rules into the agreement and clearly and unmistakably demonstrates the parties’ intent to delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator.” Id. at 702, 712 ; see Venture Cotton Co-op. v. Freeman, 435 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tex. 2014) (“arbitrability—that the dispute is subject to an enforceable agreement to arbitrate”). 2021On appeal, the court of appeals held that an arbitration agreement incorporating the AAA rules was evidence of a clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate arbitrability because under the AAA rules, an “arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence . . . of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” Id. at 631 . | 1 | 2 |
Petrofac, Inc. v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co.green1 sentence2026Ex. 1B at p. 549. ¶21 Rule 7 of the AAA Commercial Rules grants to the arbitrator the “power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to Page 10 the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim without any need to refer such matters first to a court.” AAA Comm. R. 7. “[A]s a general rule, an agreement to arbitrate in accordance with the AAA or similar rules constitutes a clear and unmistakable agreement that the arbitrator must decide whether the parties’ disputes must be resolved through ar | 1 | 1 |
Venture Cotton Cooperative and Noble Americas Corp. v. Shelby Alan Freemangreen1 sentence2026Courts will enforce a “clear and unmistakable” delegation, and “as a general rule, an agreement to arbitrate disputes in accordance with rules providing that the arbitrator ‘shall have the power’ to determine ‘the arbitrability of any claim’ incorporates those rules into the agreement and clearly and unmistakably demonstrates the parties’ intent to delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator.” Id. at 702, 712 ; see Venture Cotton Co-op. v. Freeman, 435 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Tex. 2014) (“arbitrability—that the dispute is subject to an enforceable agreement to arbitrate”). | 1 | 1 |
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2025See Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 , 68–69 (2010) (“We have recognized that parties can agree to arbitrate ‘gateway’ questions of ‘arbitrability,’ such as whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate or whether their agreement covers a particular controversy.”); TotalEnergies E&P USA, Inc., 667 S.W.3d at 712 (holding “that, as a general rule, an agreement to arbitrate disputes in accordance with rules providing that the arbitrator ‘shall have the power’ to determine ‘the arbitrability of any claim’ incorporates those rules into the agreement and clearly and unmistakably demonstr | 1 | 1 |
Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Incogreen1 sentence2021See id. at 279–80. | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Villarrealgreen1 sentence2001Garcia v. Villarreal, 478 S.W.2d 830, 832 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1971, no writ). [10] In the arbitration agreement, Webster and Davidson agreed to arbitrate the arbitrability of any claim, dispute or controversy under the FAA or the state statute, "whichever shall have the broadest effect." Under the agreement in this case, then, the question of the applicable statute was properly one for the arbitrator. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan
green
2 sentences2023We conclude that, by providing that the arbitrator “shall have the power” to determine the arbitrability of any claim, the rule clearly and unmistakably delegates that decision exclusively to the arbitrator.22 22 The dissenting opinion suggests that an agreement to delegate arbitrability issues to an arbitrator merely grants the arbitrator “primary” authority and does not deprive courts of “the ability to vacate an arbitration award ‘where the arbitrators exceeded their powers.’” Post at ____ (BUSBY, J., dissenting) (first quoting First Options, 514 U.S. at 942 ; then 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(4)). 2023It is true, of course, that courts can ultimately review an arbitrator’s arbitrability decision, but in doing so they “must defer to an arbitrator’s arbitrability decision,” First Options, 514 U.S. at 943 , and may “set that decision aside only in very unusual circumstances,” id. at 942 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Weekley Homes, L.P.
green
1 sentence2016In the trial court, JJF’s response to appellees’ petition to confirm the arbitration award also addressed the arbitrator’s authority, noting that under American Arbitration Association rules, “it is the arbitrator’s responsibility to ‘rule on his ... jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence ... of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim.’ ” 11 “Under the FAA, absent unmistakable evidence that the parties intended the contrary, it is the courts rather than arbitrators that must decide ‘gateway matters’ such as whether a valid arbitration agreem | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.