8 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ford v. NYLCare Health Plans of the Gulf Coast, Inc.green1 sentence2013The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit explained this principle in Ford v. NYLCare Health Plans of Gulf Coast, Inc., 141 F.3d 243, 247-49 (5th Cir.1998): “We will consider as a threshold matter, therefore, whether parties may designate state law to govern the scope of an arbitration clause in an agreement otherwise covered by the FAA. | 1 | 1 |
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Integrated Medical Systems, Inc.green1 sentence2008See Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc., 808 So.2d at 1013 (holding that the argument that nonmaterial breaches are outside the scope of an arbitration clause was unreasonable because “[wjhether a breach is material is ordinarily a question for the trier of fact”). | 1 | 1 |
Quality Truck and Auto Sales, Inc. v. Yassinegreen2 sentences2004Quality Truck & Auto Sales, Inc. v. Yassine, 730 So.2d 1164, 1170 (Ala.1999)("Thus, because we hold that all of Yassine's claims against Quality fall within the compass of the arbitration clause, the trial court must stay discovery with respect to those claims."). 2004Quality Truck Auto Sales, Inc. v. Yassine , 730 So.2d 1164 , 1170 (Ala. 1999) ("Thus, because we hold that all of Yassine's claims against Quality fall within the compass of the arbitration clause, the trial court must stay discovery with respect to those claims."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Owens v. Coosa Valley Health Care, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006Moreover, "when a trial court compels arbitration, that court is required by federal statute to stay all proceedings, see 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 , including discovery . . . as to any claims that fall within the scope of an arbitration clause." Owens v. Coosa Valley Health Care, Inc. , 890 So.2d 983 , 990 (Ala. 2004). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corporation
green
1 sentence2001In Old Republic, this Court stated that the plaintiff's count alleging conversion and intentional interference with business relationships "` appears to raise issues largely distinct from the central conflict over the interpretation and performance of the [agreements themselves].'" 644 So.2d at 1263 (quoting Mediterranean Enterps., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 , 1465 (9th Cir.1983)) (emphasis added) (interpolation in Old Republic ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Lanier
green
1 sentence2001In Old Republic, this Court stated that the plaintiff's count alleging conversion and intentional interference with business relationships "` appears to raise issues largely distinct from the central conflict over the interpretation and performance of the [agreements themselves].'" 644 So.2d at 1263 (quoting Mediterranean Enterps., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 , 1465 (9th Cir.1983)) (emphasis added) (interpolation in Old Republic ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.
green
2 sentences1997Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Trustees of Stanford University, 489 U.S. 468 , 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989); Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies v. Dobson, 684 So.2d 102 (Ala.1995) (Hooper, C.J., concurring specially). 1997Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Trustees of Stanford University, 489 U.S. 468 , 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989); Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies v. Dobson, 684 So.2d 102 (Ala.1995) (Hooper, C.J., concurring specially). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Allied-Bruce v. Dobson
green
1 sentence1997Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Trustees of Stanford University, 489 U.S. 468 , 109 S.Ct. 1248 , 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989); Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies v. Dobson, 684 So.2d 102 (Ala.1995) (Hooper, C.J., concurring specially). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Ex Parte Gates
green
2 sentences1996Moreover, this Court has addressed the question of the scope of an arbitration clause in Ex parte Gates, 675 So.2d 371 (Ala.1996). 1996Moreover, this Court has addressed the question of the scope of an arbitration clause in Ex parte Gates , 675 So.2d 371 (Ala. 1996). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Buitrago v. Ins
green
2 sentences1995Consequently, the only issue before this court is whether the scope of arbitrable disputes under Rule 347 includes Morgan's slander and prima facie tort claims."); Creative Securities Corp. v. Bear Stearns Co. , 671 F. Supp. 961 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), affirmed, 847 F.2d 834 (2nd Cir. N Y 1988) (examining the scope of an arbitration clause and concluding that one claim was not arbitrable). 1995Consequently, the only issue before this court is whether the scope of arbitrable disputes under Rule 347 includes Morgan's slander and prima facie tort claims."); Creative Securities Corp. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 671 F.Supp. 961 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), affirmed, 847 F.2d 834 (2nd Cir. N.Y. 1988) (examining the scope of an arbitration clause and concluding that one claim was not arbitrable). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Creative Securities Corp. v. Bear Stearns & Co.
green
2 sentences1995Consequently, the only issue before this court is whether the scope of arbitrable disputes under Rule 347 includes Morgan's slander and prima facie tort claims."); Creative Securities Corp. v. Bear Stearns Co. , 671 F. Supp. 961 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), affirmed, 847 F.2d 834 (2nd Cir. N Y 1988) (examining the scope of an arbitration clause and concluding that one claim was not arbitrable). 1995Consequently, the only issue before this court is whether the scope of arbitrable disputes under Rule 347 includes Morgan's slander and prima facie tort claims."); Creative Securities Corp. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 671 F.Supp. 961 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), affirmed, 847 F.2d 834 (2nd Cir. N.Y. 1988) (examining the scope of an arbitration clause and concluding that one claim was not arbitrable). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.