question whether a particular claim in Ohio

2015Cuyahoga No. 88948, 2008-Ohio-1820, ¶ 15 (“parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate a dispute in which they have not agreed to submit to arbitration”). {¶29} The Ohio Supreme Court stated that, in determining arbitrability, a court must be guided by the following analysis: (1) “[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to so submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit”; (2) that the question whether a particular claim is arbitrable is one of law for the court to decide; (3) that when deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a part

2013No. 09AP-702, 2010-Ohio-1994 , ¶ 10; Council of Smaller Ents. v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 661 (1998). {¶ 17} Ohio and federal courts recognize four principles that guide arbitrability: (1) that arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to so submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit; (2) that the question whether a particular claim is arbitrable is one of law for the court to decide; (3) that when deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular claim to arbitration, a court may not rule on the potential merits of

2015Cuyahoga No. 88948, 2008-Ohio-1820, ¶ 15 (“parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate a dispute in which they have not agreed to submit to arbitration”). {¶29} The Ohio Supreme Court stated that, in determining arbitrability, a court must be guided by the following analysis: (1) “[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to so submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit”; (2) that the question whether a particular claim is arbitrable is one of law for the court to decide; (3) that when deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a part

2015Cuyahoga No. 88948, 2008-Ohio-1820, ¶ 15 (“parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate a dispute in which they have not agreed to submit to arbitration”). {¶29} The Ohio Supreme Court stated that, in determining arbitrability, a court must be guided by the following analysis: (1) “[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to so submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit”; (2) that the question whether a particular claim is arbitrable is one of law for the court to decide; (3) that when deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a part

2019In determining arbitrability, a court must be guided by the following analysis: “(1) that ‘arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to so submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit’”; (2) that the question whether a particular claim is arbitrable is one of law for the court to decide; (3) that when deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular claim to arbitration, a court may not rule on the potential merits of the underlying claim; and (4) that when a “contract contains an arbitration provision, there is a presumption of

2019In determining arbitrability, a court must be guided by the following analysis: “(1) that ‘arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to so submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit’”; (2) that the question whether a particular claim is arbitrable is one of law for the court to decide; (3) that when deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular claim to arbitration, a court may not rule on the potential merits of the underlying claim; and (4) that when a “contract contains an arbitration provision, there is a presumption of

2015Academy of Medicine at ¶ 5. {¶30} Ohio courts are guided in this analysis by the federal standard set forth in Fazio v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 340 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2003), in determining whether a cause of action is within the scope of an arbitration agreement.

2013In determining whether the parties agreed to submit a dispute to arbitration, the “‘proper method of analysis * * * is to ask if an action could be maintained without reference to the contract or relationship at issue.”’ Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati at ¶ 24, quoting Fazio v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 340 F.3d 386 , 395 (6th Cir.2003). {¶15} Winters’s claim for tortious interference alleges that as part of the co-counsel agreement, Groedel was to pay $2,500 per month to Winters, which represented an advance of the cases the parties expected to earn.

2017In Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati v. Aetna Health, Inc., 108 Ohio St.3d 185 , 2006-Ohio-657 , 842 N.E.2d 488 , the Ohio Supreme Court reiterated that the test for determining the arbitrability of a given dispute involves four rules: (1) that “‘arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to so submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit’”; (2) that the question whether a particular claim is arbitrable is one of law for the court to decide; (3) that when deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular claim to arbitration, a co

2013Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati v. Aetna Health, Inc., 108 Ohio St.3d 185 , 2006-Ohio-657 , ¶ 10-14. {¶ 18} A corollary to the fourth principle is that in determining whether a cause of action is within the scope of an arbitration agreement, a state court in Ohio may base that determination on a federal standard that inquires whether the action could be maintained without reference to the contract or relationship at issue.

2010Co. (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 464, 471 , 700 N.E.2d 859 . {¶ 18} In Council of Smaller Ents. v. Gates, McDonald & Co. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 661 , 687 N.E.2d 1352 , the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted four general principles for evaluating a dispute’s arbitrability: (1) that “arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit,” (2) that the question whether a particular claim is subject to arbitration is one of law for the court to decide, (3) that when deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a partic

2009Co. (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 464, 471 , 700 N.E.2d 859 {¶ 24} In Council of Smaller Ents. v. Gates, McDonald & Co. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 661 , 687 N.E.2d 1352 , the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted four rules for reviewing decisions concerning a dispute’s “arbitrability”: (1) that “arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit,” (2) that the question whether a particular claim is arbitrable is one of law for the court to decide, (3) that when deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular

2012No. 09 CO 34 , 2011-Ohio-1183 , ¶27 citing Council at 665-666.

2011Bd. of Trustees (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 504, 508 , 646 N.E.2d 1184 . {27} In Council of Smaller Enterprises v. Gates, McDonald & Co. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 661 , 687 N.E.2d 1352 , the Ohio Supreme Court set forth guidelines in determining the arbitrability of a given dispute: (1) arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to submit; (2) the question whether a particular claim is arbitrable is one of law for the court to decide; (3) when deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular claim to arb

2011Bd. of Trustees (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 504, 508 , 646 N.E.2d 1184 . {27} In Council of Smaller Enterprises v. Gates, McDonald & Co. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 661 , 687 N.E.2d 1352 , the Ohio Supreme Court set forth guidelines in determining the arbitrability of a given dispute: (1) arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to submit; (2) the question whether a particular claim is arbitrable is one of law for the court to decide; (3) when deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular claim to arb