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.
9 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
Conseco Finance Corporation v. Sharmangreen2 sentences2012Corp. v. Shannon, 828 So.2d 890, 893 (Ala.2001)). 2010Corp. v. Sharman, 828 So.2d 890, 893-94 (Ala.2001)). | 5 | 6 |
Ex Parte Tony's Towing, Inc.green2 sentences2010Corp. v. Sharman, 828 So.2d 890, 893 (Ala.2001) (citing Cook’s Pest Control, Inc. v. Boykin, 807 So.2d 524 (Ala.2001)); see also Ex parte Tony’s Towing, Inc., 825 So.2d 96, 97 (Ala.2002) (explaining the reasons for limiting the doctrine of intertwining claims to use by the nonsigna-tory in compelling arbitration of a signatory’s claims). 2008See also Edwards v. Costner , 979 So.2d 757 , 764 (Ala. 2007) ("Intertwining is `where nonarbitrable claims are considered so intimately founded in and closely related to claims that are subject to the arbitration agreement that the party opposing arbitration is equitably estopped to deny the arbitrability of the related claims.'" (quoting Ex parte Tony's Towing, Inc. , 825 So.2d 96 , 97 (Ala. 2002))); SouthTrust Bank v. Ford , 835 So.2d 990 , 994-95 (Ala. 2002) ("The doctrine of intertwining is applicable where arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are so closely related that the party to a con | 5 | 5 |
SouthTrust Bank v. Fordgreen2 sentences2008See also Edwards v. Costner , 979 So.2d 757 , 764 (Ala. 2007) ("Intertwining is `where nonarbitrable claims are considered so intimately founded in and closely related to claims that are subject to the arbitration agreement that the party opposing arbitration is equitably estopped to deny the arbitrability of the related claims.'" (quoting Ex parte Tony's Towing, Inc. , 825 So.2d 96 , 97 (Ala. 2002))); SouthTrust Bank v. Ford , 835 So.2d 990 , 994-95 (Ala. 2002) ("The doctrine of intertwining is applicable where arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are so closely related that the party to a con 2007This Court discussed the doctrine of intertwining in SouthTrust Bank v. Ford , 835 So.2d 990 (Ala. 2002): "The doctrine of intertwining is applicable where arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are so closely related that the party to a controversy subject to arbitration is equitably estopped from denying the arbitrability of the related claim. | 1 | 2 |
Edwards v. Costnergreen1 sentence2008See also Edwards v. Costner , 979 So.2d 757 , 764 (Ala. 2007) ("Intertwining is `where nonarbitrable claims are considered so intimately founded in and closely related to claims that are subject to the arbitration agreement that the party opposing arbitration is equitably estopped to deny the arbitrability of the related claims.'" (quoting Ex parte Tony's Towing, Inc. , 825 So.2d 96 , 97 (Ala. 2002))); SouthTrust Bank v. Ford , 835 So.2d 990 , 994-95 (Ala. 2002) ("The doctrine of intertwining is applicable where arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are so closely related that the party to a con | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Boykin
green
2 sentences2010Corp. v. Sharman, 828 So.2d 890, 893 (Ala.2001) (citing Cook’s Pest Control, Inc. v. Boykin, 807 So.2d 524 (Ala.2001)); see also Ex parte Tony’s Towing, Inc., 825 So.2d 96, 97 (Ala.2002) (explaining the reasons for limiting the doctrine of intertwining claims to use by the nonsignatory in compelling arbitration of a signatory’s claims). 2010Corp. v. Sharman, 828 So.2d 890, 893 (Ala.2001) (citing Cook’s Pest Control, Inc. v. Boykin, 807 So.2d 524 (Ala.2001)); see also Ex parte Tony’s Towing, Inc., 825 So.2d 96, 97 (Ala.2002) (explaining the reasons for limiting the doctrine of intertwining claims to use by the nonsigna-tory in compelling arbitration of a signatory’s claims). | 4 | 2002–2010 |
Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Godsey
neutral
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Ex parte Tony's Towing, Inc. , 825 So.2d 96 (Ala. 2002); Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Godsey , [ 824 So.2d 713 (Ala. 2001)]; Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Boykin , 807 So.2d 524 (Ala. 2001). ". . . . ". . . [T]he doctrine of estoppel is applicable only to estop a signatory from avoiding arbitration. 2002See, e.g., Ex parte Tony's Towing, Inc., 825 So.2d 96 (Ala.2002); Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Godsey, supra; Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Boykin, 807 So.2d 524 (Ala.2001). | 2 | 2002–2007 |
Custom Performance, Inc. v. Dawson
green
1 sentence2012We also noted in Custom Performance that a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may compel a signatory to that agreement to arbitrate claims " 'where arbitrable and nonarbi-trable claims are so closely related that the party to a controversy subject to arbitration is equitably estopped to deny the arbitrability of the related claim.’ ” 57 So.3d at 99 (quoting Conseco Fin. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Fountain v. Ingram
green
1 sentence2010Equitable Estoppel Arbitration may be compelled “ ‘under the doctrine of “intertwining,” where arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are so closely related that the party to a controversy subject to arbitration is equitably estopped to deny the arbitrability of the related claim.’ ” Fountain, 926 So.2d at 335 (quoting Conseco Fin. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.