9 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1964–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. GGNSC PIERRE LLCgreen2 sentences2016The court, further found that “the severance provision indicates that the intention was not to make the [designated forum] integral, but rather to have a dispute resolution process through arbitration.” Id. (citing Jones v. GGNSC Pierre LLC, 684 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1167 (D.S.D.2010)). 2016The court further found that “the severance provision indicates that the intention was not to make the [designated forum] integral, but rather to have a dispute resolution process through arbitration.” Id. (citing Jones v. GGNSC Pierre LLC, 684 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1167 (D.S.D. 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. GGNSC Atlanta, LLCgreen2 sentences2016See also Miller, 746 S.E.2d 680 ; Rivera, 259 P.3d 803 . 2016See also Miller, 746 S.E.2d 680 ; Rivera, 259 P.3d 803 . | 1 | 1 |
Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 204 Cal.App.4th 1425 , 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 38 (2012) (holding that a severability provision contained within the arbitration agreement created an ambiguity with the delegation provision, thus requiring the delegation provision to be construed most strongly against the drafting party); Commercial Credit Corp. v. Leggett, 744 So.2d 890 (Ala.1999) (holding that a sever-ability clause contained within the arbitration agreement created an ambiguity with the delegation provision such that there was no clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to arbitrate issues of 2012See Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 204 Cal.App.4th 1425 , 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 38 (2012) (holding that a severability provision contained within the arbitration agreement created an ambiguity with the delegation provision, thus requiring the delegation provision to be construed most strongly against the drafting party); Commercial Credit Corp. v. Leggett, 744 So.2d 890 (Ala.1999) (holding that a sever-ability clause contained within the arbitration agreement created an ambiguity with the delegation provision such that there was no clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to arbitrate issues of | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dorchy v. Kansas
green
2 sentences1994Co., 237 Ark. 745 , 375 S.W.2d 809 (1964), we stated that a severability clause may be an aid to the courts in construction of a statute but in the words of Justice Brandeis, it is not "an inexorable command." 237 Ark. at 748 , 375 S.W.2d at 810 , citing Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 (1924). 1994Co., 237 Ark. 745 , 375 S.W.2d 809 (1964), we stated that a severability clause may be an aid to the courts in construction of a statute but in the words of Justice Brandeis, it is not "an inexorable command." 237 Ark. at 748 , 375 S.W.2d at 810 , citing Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 (1924). | 3 | 1964–1994 |
Combs v. Glen Falls Insurance
green
2 sentences1994Co., 237 Ark. 745 , 375 S.W.2d 809 (1964), we stated that a severability clause may be an aid to the courts in construction of a statute but in the words of Justice Brandeis, it is not "an inexorable command." 237 Ark. at 748 , 375 S.W.2d at 810 , citing Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 (1924). 1994Co., 237 Ark. 745 , 375 S.W.2d 809 (1964), we stated that a severability clause may be an aid to the courts in construction of a statute but in the words of Justice Brandeis, it is not "an inexorable command." 237 Ark. at 748 , 375 S.W.2d at 810 , citing Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 (1924). | 2 | 1993–1994 |
Brandon Mounce v. Jeronimo Insulating, LLC
green
2 sentences2022The appellate court then held, “We find Mounce’s appellate arguments without merit and hold that Mounce has not demonstrated reversible error.” Id. at 8, 625 S.W.3d at 372 . 12 The court further held, “We hasten to add that the agreement itself contains a severability clause, so the parties agreed to permit reformation of this non-compete agreement to any extent necessary to make it enforceable under the law.” Id. at 9, 625 S.W.3d at 373 . 2022The appellate court then held, “We find Mounce’s appellate arguments without merit and hold that Mounce has not demonstrated reversible error.” Id. at 8, 625 S.W.3d at 372 . 12 The court further held, “We hasten to add that the agreement itself contains a severability clause, so the parties agreed to permit reformation of this non-compete agreement to any extent necessary to make it enforceable under the law.” Id. at 9, 625 S.W.3d at 373 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Stewart v. GGNSC-Canonsburg, L.P.
green
2 sentences2016Other courts have criticized the reasoning in Jones on this point, stating that it “erroneously concluded that the severability clause trumped the plain language of the-contract designating the NAF as the exclusive forum to arbitrate claims.” Stewart, 9 A.3d at 220 . 2016Other courts have criticized the reasoning in Jones on this point, stating that it “erroneously concluded that the severability clause trumped the plain language of the contract designating the NAF as the exclusive forum to arbitrate claims.” Stewart, 9 A.3d at 220 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Rivera v. American General Financial Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016See also Miller, 746 S.E.2d 680 ; Rivera, 259 P.3d 803 . 2016See also Miller, 746 S.E.2d 680 ; Rivera, 259 P.3d 803 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Courtyard Gardens Health & Rehabilitation, LLC v. Arnold
green
1 sentence2016Fourth, the arbitration agreement contains a severability clause, which further evidences the parties’ intent to arbitrate even if a portion of the arbitration agreement is 15 Cite as 2016 Ark. 62 unenforceable. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Awuah v. Coverall North America, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012In reversing, the First Circuit held that the inclusion of a severability clause in the contract was “too thin a basis” for concluding that the agreement’s language evinced an intent to allow questions of arbitrability to be decided by a court when the AAA Rule stated plainly that the arbitrator may “rule on his or her own jurisdiction” including any objection to the “existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement.” The court concluded that “[t]his is about as ‘clear and unmistakable’ as language can get[.]” Id. at 11 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Commercial Credit Corporation v. Leggett
green
1 sentence2012See Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 204 Cal.App.4th 1425 , 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 38 (2012) (holding that a severability provision contained within the arbitration agreement created an ambiguity with the delegation provision, thus requiring the delegation provision to be construed most strongly against the drafting party); Commercial Credit Corp. v. Leggett, 744 So.2d 890 (Ala.1999) (holding that a sever-ability clause contained within the arbitration agreement created an ambiguity with the delegation provision such that there was no clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to arbitrate issues of | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Reid v. Jones
neutral
2 sentences1994Reid v. Jones, 261 Ark. 550 , 551 S.W.2d 191 (1977). 1994Reid v. Jones, 261 Ark. 550 , 551 S.W.2d 191 (1977). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Faubus v. Kinney
green
2 sentences1990Faubus v. Kenny, 239 Ark. 443 , 389 S.W.2d 887 (1965). 1990Faubus v. Kenny, 239 Ark. 443 , 389 S.W.2d 887 (1965). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Marsh
green
1 sentence1964Among our many cases to this effect are State v. Marsh, 37 Ark. 356 ; Cotham v. Coffman, 111 Ark. 108 , 163 S. W. 1183 ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Cotham v. Coffman
green
2 sentences1964Among our many cases to this effect are State v. Marsh, 37 Ark. 356 ; Cotham v. Coffman, 111 Ark. 108 , 163 S. W. 1183 ; State ex rel. 1964Among our many cases to this effect are State v. Marsh, 37 Ark. 356 ; Cotham v. Coffman, 111 Ark. 108 , 163 S. W. 1183 ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.