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 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.green2 sentences2023As our Supreme Court has noted on a number of occasions, Congress's intent in enacting the FAA was "to abrogate the then-existing common law rule disfavoring arbitration agreements 'and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.'" Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76, 84 (2002) (quoting Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24 (1991)). 2020The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 to 16, was enacted "to abrogate the then-existing common law rule disfavoring arbitration agreements 'and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.'" Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76, 84 (2002) (quoting Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24 (1991)). | 8 | 8 |
Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc.green2 sentences2023As our Supreme Court has noted on a number of occasions, Congress's intent in enacting the FAA was "to abrogate the then-existing common law rule disfavoring arbitration agreements 'and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.'" Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76, 84 (2002) (quoting Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24 (1991)). 2020The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 to 16, was enacted "to abrogate the then-existing common law rule disfavoring arbitration agreements 'and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.'" Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76, 84 (2002) (quoting Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24 (1991)). | 3 | 7 |
Michael E. Hirsch v. Amper Financial Services, LLC (070751)green1 sentence2018This ruling is contrary to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 to 16, which "was enacted 'to abrogate the then- existing common law rule disfavoring arbitration agreements[.]'" Hirsch v. Amper Financial Services, LLC, 215 N.J. 174, 187 (2013) (also noting that the New Jersey Arbitration Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23B- 1 to -32, "is similar in nature to the FAA" and likewise favors the enforcement of arbitration agreements). | 1 | 1 |
Epix v. MARSH & McLENNAN COMPANIESred1 sentence2018Importantly, the FAA "requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement." EPIX Holdings Corp. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 410 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
HOJNOWSKI EX REL. HOJNOWSKI v. Vans Skate Parkgreen2 sentences2013See Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323, 341-42 , 901 A.2d 381 (2006) (noting federal and state preference for enforcing arbitration agreements); Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 168 N.J. 124, 131 , 773 A.2d 665 (2001) (recognizing “arbitration as a favored method of resolving disputes”). *187 The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 to 16, was enacted “to abrogate the then-existing common law rule disfavoring arbitration agreements ‘and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.’ ” Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N 2013See Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323, 341-42 , 901 A.2d 381 (2006) (noting federal and state preference for enforcing arbitration agreements); Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 168 N.J. 124, 131 , 773 A.2d 665 (2001) (recognizing “arbitration as a favored method of resolving disputes”). *187 The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 to 16, was enacted “to abrogate the then-existing common law rule disfavoring arbitration agreements ‘and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.’ ” Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N | 1 | 1 |
Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.A.green2 sentences2013See Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323, 341-42 , 901 A.2d 381 (2006) (noting federal and state preference for enforcing arbitration agreements); Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 168 N.J. 124, 131 , 773 A.2d 665 (2001) (recognizing “arbitration as a favored method of resolving disputes”). *187 The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 to 16, was enacted “to abrogate the then-existing common law rule disfavoring arbitration agreements ‘and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.’ ” Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N 2013See Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323, 341-42 , 901 A.2d 381 (2006) (noting federal and state preference for enforcing arbitration agreements); Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 168 N.J. 124, 131 , 773 A.2d 665 (2001) (recognizing “arbitration as a favored method of resolving disputes”). *187 The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 to 16, was enacted “to abrogate the then-existing common law rule disfavoring arbitration agreements ‘and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.’ ” Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N | 1 | 1 |
Leodori v. Cigna Corp.green2 sentences2004See also Leodori v. CIGNA Corp., 175 N.J. 293 , *746 302, 814 A. 2d 1098 (2003). 2004See also Leodori v. CIGNA Corp., 175 N.J. 293 , *746 302, 814 A. 2d 1098 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Patricia Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P. (072314)
green
1 sentence2023The Court in Atalese explained "[a]n arbitration clause, like any contractual clause providing for the waiver of a constitutional or statutory right, must state its purpose clearly and unambiguously." 219 N.J. at 435 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.