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 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rodgers Builders, Inc. v. McQueengreen2 sentences2025“To determine whether the parties agreed to submit a particular dispute or claim to arbitration, we must look at the language in the agreement, viz., the arbitration clause, and ascertain whether the claims fall within its scope.” Rodgers Builders, Inc. v. McQueen, 76 N.C. 2025App. at 23–24, 331 S.E.2d at 731 (“To determine whether the parties agreed to submit a particular dispute or claim to arbitration, we must look at the language in the agreement . . . , the arbitration clause, and ascertain whether the claims fall within its scope.”); Lorant, 187 N.C. | 4 | 7 |
Thomasville Chair Co. v. United Furniture Workers of Americagreen2 sentences2025App. 16 , 23–24, 331 S.E.2d 726, 731 (1985); see also, e.g., Thomasville Chair Co. v. United Furniture Workers, 233 N.C. 46, 49 , 62 S.E.2d 535, 537 (1950) (noting that the “power and authority of the arbitrators here was limited by the terms of the agreement and the grievance submitted, and the - 17 - REYNOLDS V. 2025App. 16 , 23–24, 331 S.E.2d 726, 731 (1985); see also, e.g., Thomasville Chair Co. v. United Furniture Workers, 233 N.C. 46, 49 , 62 S.E.2d 535, 537 (1950) (noting that the “power and authority of the arbitrators here was limited by the terms of the agreement and the grievance submitted, and the - 17 - REYNOLDS V. | 1 | 1 |
Faison & Gillespie v. Lorantgreen2 sentences2025App. at 23–24, 331 S.E.2d at 731 (“To determine whether the parties agreed to submit a particular dispute or claim to arbitration, we must look at the language in the agreement . . . , the arbitration clause, and ascertain whether the claims fall within its scope.”); Lorant, 187 N.C. 2025App. at 578 , 654 S.E.2d at 54 (“An arbitrator’s award cannot be modified for error of law unless that error caused the arbitrator to act beyond the scope of his authority. . . . [And] an award may not be vacated merely because the arbitrator erred as to law or fact.”). | 1 | 1 |
Cyclone Roofing Co. v. David M. LaFave Co.green1 sentence1985In so doing, “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Cyclone Roofing Co. v. LaFave Co., 312 N.C. 224, 229 , 321 S.E. 2d 872, 876 (1984), quoting Moses H. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rodgers Builders, Inc. v. McQueen
neutral
2 sentences2014App. 16, 23-24 , 331 S.E.2d 726, 731 (1985), disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 590 , 341 S.E.2d 29 (1986). 2005“Courts look to the language of an agreement to determine whether the parties agreed to submit a particular dispute or claim to arbitration . . . and ascertain^] whether the claims fall within its scope[.]” Id. (internal quotations omitted). | 3 | 2005–2014 |
Lynch v. Hazelwood
green
1 sentence1985In so doing, “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Cyclone Roofing Co. v. LaFave Co., 312 N.C. 224, 229 , 321 S.E. 2d 872, 876 (1984), quoting Moses H. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.