11 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Richmond American Homes of West Virginia, Inc. v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2021Va. 125 , 717 S.E.2d 909 (2011): Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2 , and the doctrine of severability, only if a party to a contract explicitly challenges the enforceability of an arbitration clause within the contract, as opposed to generally challenging the contract as a whole, is a trial court permitted to consider the challenge to the arbitration clause. . . . 2020Va. 125, 129 , 717 S.E.2d 909, 913 (2011), we said in part: Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2 , and the doctrine of severability, only if a party to a contract explicitly challenges the enforceability of an arbitration clause within the contract, as opposed to generally challenging the contract as a whole, is a trial court permitted to consider the challenge to the arbitration clause. | 2 | 7 |
Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2016See 230 W.Va. at 283 , 737 S.E.2d at 552 , syl. pt. 6. 2016See 230 W.Va. at 283 , 737 S.E.2d at 552 , syl. pt. 6. | 2 | 2 |
Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Genesis Healthcaregreen2 sentences2015In Prima Paint, the plaintiff and (continued . . .) 8 a pleading standard’ that holds that ‘only if a party explicitly challenges the enforceability of an arbitration clause within a contract is a court then permitted to consider challenges to the arbitration clause.’” Richmond American Homes, 228 W.Va. at 134 , 717 S.E.2d at 918 (quoting Brown I, 228 W.Va. at 675, 724 S.E.2d at 279 ). 2015The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the FAA to require questions about the validity of an arbitration provision to be severed and adjudicated separately from any other contractual question. 6 ‘“This doctrine is essentially a pleading standard’ that holds that ‘only if a party explicitly challenges the enforceability of an arbitration clause within a contract is a court then permitted to consider challenges to the arbitration clause.’ ” Richmond American Homes, 228 W.Va. at 134 , 717 S.E.2d at 918 (quoting Brown I, 228 W.Va. at 675, 724 S.E.2d at 279 ). | 1 | 4 |
Brown ex rel. Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp.green1 sentence2013Va. 646 , 724 S.E.2d 250 (2011) (“Brown I”), Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 229 W. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 763276green1 sentence2002See, e.g., Hooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933 (4th Cir.1999); Toppings v. Meritech Mortg. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.