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.
77 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 15 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 sentences2026First, “[w]here the language of the arbitration agreement is clear, and it is apparent that the dispute sought to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, the court should decide the arbitrability issue and compel arbitration.” Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Futures, Inc. v. Barr, 124 Ill. 2d 435, 445 (1988). 2023Our court has held that a three-pronged approach applies: “(1) if it is clear that the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must compel arbitration; (2) if it is clear that the dispute does not fall within the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must deny the motion -10- 1-22-1804 to compel; and (3) if it unclear or ambiguous whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to the arbitrator to deicide arbitrability.” Id. (citing Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Futures, Inc. v. Barr, 124 Ill. 2d | 17 | 34 |
Salsitz v. Kreissgreen2 sentences2004The courts can determine the issue of arbitrability and compel arbitration when “ ‘the language of the arbitration agreement is clear[ ] and it is apparent that the dispute sought to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration clause.’ ” Salsitz v. Kreiss, 198 Ill. 2d 1, 9 , 761 N.E.2d 724, 728 (2001), quoting Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Futures, Inc. v. Barr, 124 Ill. 2d 435, 445 , 530 N.E.2d 439, 443 (1988). 2004The courts can determine the issue of arbitrability and compel arbitration when “ ‘the language of the arbitration agreement is clear[ ] and it is apparent that the dispute sought to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration clause.’ ” Salsitz v. Kreiss, 198 Ill. 2d 1, 9 , 761 N.E.2d 724, 728 (2001), quoting Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Futures, Inc. v. Barr, 124 Ill. 2d 435, 445 , 530 N.E.2d 439, 443 (1988). | 5 | 5 |
Jensen v. Quik Internationalgreen2 sentences2018App. 3d 844 , 846, 26 Ill.Dec. 494 , 388 N.E.2d 118 (1979) ("[w]hether the alleged breach of the agreement and the resulting damages are within the scope of the arbitration clause is for the arbitrator to decide"; otherwise, "one could avoid complying with arbitration clauses by merely alleging that the other party breached or repudiated the contract"); *893 Jensen v. Quik International , 213 Ill. 2d 119 , 129, 289 Ill.Dec. 686 , 820 N.E.2d 462 (2004) (finding that the question of whether the plaintiff was entitled to rescission of the agreement due to violations of statutory requirements was 2018App. 3d 844 , 846, 26 Ill.Dec. 494 , 388 N.E.2d 118 (1979) ("[w]hether the alleged breach of the agreement and the resulting damages are within the scope of the arbitration clause is for the arbitrator to decide"; otherwise, "one could avoid complying with arbitration clauses by merely alleging that the other party breached or repudiated the contract"); *893 Jensen v. Quik International , 213 Ill. 2d 119 , 129, 289 Ill.Dec. 686 , 820 N.E.2d 462 (2004) (finding that the question of whether the plaintiff was entitled to rescission of the agreement due to violations of statutory requirements was | 3 | 4 |
Travis v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2026App. 3d 173, 180 (2007). “ ‘If the language of an arbitration agreement is clear and it is obvious that the dispute desired to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, the court should compel arbitration.’ ” Id. (quoting Travis, 335 Ill. 2020App. 3d 173, 180 (2007). “ ‘If the language of an arbitration agreement is clear and it is obvious that the dispute desired to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, the court should compel arbitration.’ ” Id. (quoting Travis v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., 335 Ill. | 2 | 5 |
Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Platinum Supplemental Insurance, Inc.green2 sentences2026“In making that determination, a three-pronged approach is used: (1) if it is clear that the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must compel arbitration; (2) if it is clear that the dispute does not fall within the arbitration clause -4- No. 1-26-0579 or agreement, the court must deny the motion to compel; and (3) if it is unclear or ambiguous whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to the arbitrator to decide arbitrability.” Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Platinum Supplemental Insur 2026“In making that determination, a three-pronged approach is used: (1) if it is clear that the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must compel arbitration; (2) if it is clear that the dispute does not fall within the arbitration clause -4- No. 1-26-0579 or agreement, the court must deny the motion to compel; and (3) if it is unclear or ambiguous whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to the arbitrator to decide arbitrability.” Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Platinum Supplemental Insur | 2 | 5 |
Caudle v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.green2 sentences2002Caudle v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 245 Ill. 2002Caudle v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 245 Ill. | 2 | 3 |
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegnagreen2 sentences2021See Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 444-46 (2006); Jensen v. Quik International, 213 Ill. 2d 119, 123-24 (2004). 2021See Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 444-46 (2006); -8- Jensen v. Quik International, 213 Ill. 2d 119, 123-24 (2004). | 2 | 2 |
Ozdeger v. Altaygreen2 sentences2011See Ozdeger v. Altay, 66 Ill.App.3d 629, 632 , 23 Ill.Dec. 446 , 384 N.E.2d 82 (1978) (holding subsequent oral agreement dealing with carpentry management was within scope of written contract's arbitration clause, which applied to "all disputes arising out of the subject matter of the contract, that is, the construction of plaintiffs' home"). ¶ 21 The dispute over the validity of the membership assignment is arbitrable, and the circuit court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration. 2011See Ozdeger v. Altay, 66 Ill.App.3d 629, 632 , 23 Ill.Dec. 446 , 384 N.E.2d 82 (1978) (holding subsequent oral agreement dealing with carpentry management was within scope of written contract's arbitration clause, which applied to "all disputes arising out of the subject matter of the contract, that is, the construction of plaintiffs' home"). ¶ 21 The dispute over the validity of the membership assignment is arbitrable, and the circuit court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration. | 2 | 2 |
Griffith v. Wilmette Harbor Ass'n, Inc.green2 sentences2026App. 3d 173, 180 (2007). “ ‘If the language of an arbitration agreement is clear and it is obvious that the dispute desired to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, the court should compel arbitration.’ ” Id. (quoting Travis, 335 Ill. 2020App. 3d 173, 180 (2007). “ ‘If the language of an arbitration agreement is clear and it is obvious that the dispute desired to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, the court should compel arbitration.’ ” Id. (quoting Travis v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., 335 Ill. | 1 | 3 |
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.green2 sentences2022These include whether the parties agreed to arbitration (arbitrability), whether the agreement covers a particular controversy (scope) (id.), and whether the arbitration clause is enforceable as a whole (validity). 1 Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 74-76 (2010). “ ‘[A]mbiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause’ ” are resolved in favor of arbitration given “ ‘the federal policy favoring arbitration.’ ” Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 62 (1995) (quoting Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univer 1998Mastrobuono, 514 U.S. at 62 , 115 S.Ct. at 1218 , 131 L.Ed.2d at 87 , citing Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468 , 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989). | 1 | 3 |
Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.green2 sentences2022These include whether the parties agreed to arbitration (arbitrability), whether the agreement covers a particular controversy (scope) (id.), and whether the arbitration clause is enforceable as a whole (validity). 1 Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 74-76 (2010). “ ‘[A]mbiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause’ ” are resolved in favor of arbitration given “ ‘the federal policy favoring arbitration.’ ” Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 62 (1995) (quoting Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univer 1998Mastrobuono, 514 U.S. at 62 , 115 S.Ct. at 1218 , 131 L.Ed.2d at 87 , citing Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468 , 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989). | 1 | 3 |
Board of Managers of the Courtyards at the Woodlands Condominium Ass'n v. Iko Chicago, Inc.green2 sentences2018"In making that determination, a three-pronged approach is used: (1) if it is clear that the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must compel arbitration; (2) if it is clear that the dispute does not fall within the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must deny the motion to compel; and (3) if it is unclear or ambiguous whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to the arbitrator to decide arbitrability." Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Platinum Supplemental Insurance, Inc. , 2016 2018"In making that determination, a three-pronged approach is used: (1) if it is clear that the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must compel arbitration; (2) if it is clear that the dispute does not fall within the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must deny the motion to compel; and (3) if it is unclear or ambiguous whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to the arbitrator to decide arbitrability." Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Platinum Supplemental Insurance, Inc. , 2016 | 1 | 2 |
Garver v. Fergusongreen2 sentences2018App. 3d 844 , 846, 26 Ill.Dec. 494 , 388 N.E.2d 118 (1979) ("[w]hether the alleged breach of the agreement and the resulting damages are within the scope of the arbitration clause is for the arbitrator to decide"; otherwise, "one could avoid complying with arbitration clauses by merely alleging that the other party breached or repudiated the contract"); *893 Jensen v. Quik International , 213 Ill. 2d 119 , 129, 289 Ill.Dec. 686 , 820 N.E.2d 462 (2004) (finding that the question of whether the plaintiff was entitled to rescission of the agreement due to violations of statutory requirements was 2018App. 3d 844 , 846, 26 Ill.Dec. 494 , 388 N.E.2d 118 (1979) ("[w]hether the alleged breach of the agreement and the resulting damages are within the scope of the arbitration clause is for the arbitrator to decide"; otherwise, "one could avoid complying with arbitration clauses by merely alleging that the other party breached or repudiated the contract"); *893 Jensen v. Quik International , 213 Ill. 2d 119 , 129, 289 Ill.Dec. 686 , 820 N.E.2d 462 (2004) (finding that the question of whether the plaintiff was entitled to rescission of the agreement due to violations of statutory requirements was | 1 | 2 |
Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLPgreen2 sentences2015By interfering with, or compromising the integrity of, this process of legal review by a third party, BDO went outside its field of activity as contemplated by the consulting agreement and, therefore, outside the scope of the arbitration clause." Id. 2012Khan I, 404 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Suburban Auto Rebuilders, Inc. v. Associated Tile Dealers Warehouse, Inc.green1 sentence2026All contracts must be considered in their entirety and must also be objectively interpreted considering “the ordinary expectations of reasonable people.” Suburban Auto Rebuilders, Inc. v. Associated Tile Dealers Warehouse, Inc., 388 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Tortoriello v. Gerald Nissan of North Aurora, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| MHR Estate Plan, LLC v. K&G Partnershipgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Green v. Bank One La Grangegreen | 1 | 1 |
| LAS, INC. v. Mini-Tankers, USA, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Grevas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
School District No. 46 v. Del Bianco
green
2 sentences1988School District No. 46 v. Del Bianco (1966), 68 Ill. 1985Defendants cite supporting case authority both in the commercial context ( School District No. 46 v. Del Bianco (1966), 68 Ill. | 4 | 1978–1988 |
Hartz v. Brehm Preparatory School, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Hartz v. Brehm Preparatory School, Inc., 2021 IL App (5th) 190327 , ¶ 42. ¶ 30 Illinois considers arbitration to be a favored method of dispute resolution. 2024Hartz v. Brehm Preparatory School, Inc., 2021 IL App (5th) 190327, ¶ 42 . ¶ 17 Under Illinois law, when determining whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute, the circuit court is to use a three-pronged approach: “(i) if it is clear that the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must compel arbitration, (ii) if it is clear that the dispute does not fall within the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must deny the motion to compel, and (iii) if it is unclear or ambiguous whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration cla | 3 | 2023–2025 |
Liu v. Four Seasons Hotel, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2024Hartz v. Brehm Preparatory School, Inc., 2021 IL App (5th) 190327, ¶ 42 . ¶ 17 Under Illinois law, when determining whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute, the circuit court is to use a three-pronged approach: “(i) if it is clear that the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must compel arbitration, (ii) if it is clear that the dispute does not fall within the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must deny the motion to compel, and (iii) if it is unclear or ambiguous whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration cla 2023Under Illinois law, when determining whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute, the circuit court is to use a three- pronged approach: “(i) if it is clear that the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must compel arbitration, (ii) if it is clear that the dispute does not fall within the arbitration clause or agreement, the court must deny the motion to compel, and (iii) if it is unclear or ambiguous whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to the arbitrator to decide arbitrability.” | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Beider v. Eugene Matanky & Associates, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2014Id. at 359 . - 12 - Defendants assert that this provision has been interpreted to mean that an arbitrator may not award attorney fees unless the arbitration agreement provides for fees. 1982App. 3d 354 , 371 N.E.2d 29 , defendant contends that the issue of termination of the arbitration agreement was within the scope of the arbitration clause and therefore should have been decided by the arbitrator. | 2 | 1982–2014 |
Diersen v. Joe Keim Builders, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Id. ¶ 27 Here, similar to Diersen , plaintiff is challenging the validity of the membership assignment, not the existence of the arbitration clause in the operating agreement. 2011Id. ¶ 27 Here, similar to Diersen, plaintiff is challenging the validity of the membership assignment, not the existence of the arbitration clause in the operating agreement. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.
green
2 sentences2010Because breach is a failure to perform, the scope of the arbitration clause might be expressed more simply as “claims relating to the performance of the consulting agreement.” It is important to realize that the arbitration clause in this case is more narrow than the typical arbitration clause, such as the one in Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 398 , 18 L. 2010Because breach is a failure to perform, the scope of the arbitration clause might be expressed more simply as “claims relating to the performance of the consulting agreement.” It is important to realize that the arbitration clause in this case is more narrow than the typical arbitration clause, such as the one in Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 398 , 18 L. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Reed v. Doctor's Associates, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Reed v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., 331 Ill. 2005Reed v. Doctor's Associates, Inc. , 331 Ill. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Hanke v. American International South Insurance
green
2 sentences2005The court found that the dispute at issue does not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause in the service agreement because (1) the plaintiff's complaint alleges fraud, to which this court found appraisal clauses to be inapplicable in Hanke v. American International South Insurance Co. , 335 Ill. 2005The court found that the dispute at issue does not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause in the service agreement because (1) the plaintiffs complaint alleges fraud, to which this court found appraisal clauses to be inapplicable in Hanke v. American International South Insurance Co., 335 Ill. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
City of Centralia v. Natkin & Co.
green
2 sentences2002City of Centralia , 257 Ill. 2002City of Centralia, 257 Ill. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Nelson for Soller v. ROGER J. LANGE
green
2 sentences2000Lange & Co., 229 Ill. App. 3d 909 , 594 N.E.2d 391 (1992), the court held that a claim of fraud in the inducement of a contract was within the scope of the arbitration clause contained in that contract and that therefore the arbitration clause in this case is broad enough to encompass all of plaintiffs claims, including that the arbitration clause is invalid due to violations of the Securities Law. 2000Lange & Co., 229 Ill. App. 3d 909 , 594 N.E.2d 391 (1992), the court held that a claim of fraud in the inducement of a contract was within the scope of the arbitration clause contained in that contract and that therefore the arbitration clause in this case is broad enough to encompass all of plaintiffs claims, including that the arbitration clause is invalid due to violations of the Securities Law. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp.
green
2 sentences1992(Donaldson, 124 Ill. 2d at 445 , 530 N.E.2d at 443 .) However, “when the language of an arbitration clause is broad and it is unclear whether the subject matter of the dispute falls within the scope of [the] arbitration agreement, the question of substantive arbitrability should initially be decided by the arbitrator.” (Emphasis added.) (Donaldson, 124 Ill. 2d at 447-48 , 530 N.E.2d at 445 .) The Donaldson court reasoned that “ ‘[wjhether the party seeking arbitration is right or wrong is a question of contract application and interpretation for the arbitrator, not the court, and the court sho 1992(Donaldson, 124 Ill. 2d at 445 , 530 N.E.2d at 443 .) However, “when the language of an arbitration clause is broad and it is unclear whether the subject matter of the dispute falls within the scope of [the] arbitration agreement, the question of substantive arbitrability should initially be decided by the arbitrator.” (Emphasis added.) (Donaldson, 124 Ill. 2d at 447-48 , 530 N.E.2d at 445 .) The Donaldson court reasoned that “ ‘[wjhether the party seeking arbitration is right or wrong is a question of contract application and interpretation for the arbitrator, not the court, and the court sho | 2 | 1988–1992 |
J&K Cement Construction, Inc. v. Montalbano Builders, Inc.
green
2 sentences1988(J&K Cement Construction, Inc. v. Montalbano Builders, Inc. (1983), 119 Ill. 1987J & K Cement Construction, Inc. v. Montalbano Builders, Inc. (1983), 119 Ill. App.3d 663 , 456 N.E.2d 920 , continued the line of cases which arose in the context of a construction contract. | 2 | 1987–1988 |
Roosevelt University v. Mayfair Construction Co.
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. | 2 | 1987–1988 |
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. | 2 | 1976–1988 |
| Radiant Star Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Metropolis Condominium Ass'n green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Brookner v. General Motors Corp. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Clark v. Foresight Energy, LLC
green
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Clanton v. Oakbrook Healthcare Centre, Ltd. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Watts Regulator Company green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Stuart-Dean Co. v. Lurie green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Fiala v. Bickford Senior Living Group, LLC green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Keeley & Sons, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Johnson v. Noble green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| United Cable Television Corp. v. Northwest Illinois Cable Corp. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Atkins v. Rustic Woods Partners green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| D.E. Wright Electric, Inc. v. Henry Ross Construction Co. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Board of Trustees v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600 green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| People v. Dickerson green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Farris v. Hedgepeth green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150 v. Flair Builders, Inc. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| J. F. Inc. v. Vicik green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| International Union United Automobile Aerospace & Agriculture Implement Workers of America v. Lester Engineering Co. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Wilcox Co. v. Bouramas green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Butler Products Company, an Illinois Corporation, George W. Butler and Gladys A. Butler v. Unistrut Corporation, a Michigan Corporation green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Harrison F. Blades, Inc. v. Jarman Memorial Hospital Building Fund, Inc. green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.