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.
8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
International Paper Company v. Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen Gmbhgreen2 sentences2019This includes circumstances giving rise to estoppel: “[a] nonsignatory is estopped from refusing to comply with an arbitration clause when it receives a direct benefit from a contract containing an arbitration clause.” Id. at *11 (quoting Int’l Paper, 206 F.3d at 418 ). 6. 2019This includes circumstances giving rise to estoppel: “[a] nonsignatory is estopped from refusing to comply with an arbitration clause when it receives a direct benefit from a contract containing an arbitration clause.” Id. at *11 (quoting Int’l Paper, 206 F.3d at 418 ). 6. | 4 | 5 |
Kenisha Brantley Greg Brantley, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Republic Mortgage Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2009See also Brantley v. Republic Mortgage Ins., Co., 424 F.3d 392 , 395–96 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that equitable estoppel applies with respect to arbitration provisions when (1) a signatory to the contract containing an arbitration clause must rely on the terms of the agreement to assert claims against a nonsignatory, or (2) a signatory to the contract raises allegations of substantially interdependent misconduct by both a nonsignatory and one or more signatories to the contract (quoting MS Dealer Serv. | 1 | 1 |
Schlaifer v. Sedlowgreen2 sentences2008See Schlaifer v. Sedlow, 51 N.Y.2d 181, 185 , 412 N.E.2d 1294, 1296 (1980) (“Once the parties to a broad arbitration clause have made a valid choice of forum, as here, all questions with respect to the validity and effect of subsequent documents purporting to work a modification or termination of the substantive provisions of their original agreement are to be resolved by the arbitrator.”). 2008See Schlaifer v. Sedlow, 51 N.Y.2d 181, 185 , 412 N.E.2d 1294, 1296 (1980) (“Once the parties to a broad arbitration clause have made a valid choice of forum, as here, all questions with respect to the validity and effect of subsequent documents purporting to work a modification or termination of the substantive provisions of their original agreement are to be resolved by the arbitrator.”). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
LSB Financial Services, Inc. v. Harrison
green
2 sentences2023Servs., 144 N.C. 2021Id. at 548–49, 548 S.E.2d at 579 ; see also Int’l Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen GMBH, 206 F.3d 411, 418 (4th Cir. 2000). | 3 | 2021–2023 |
MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklin
green
1 sentence2009Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942 , 947 (11th Cir. 1999))). {59} Given the strong seal of approval that our Supreme Court has given to contract clauses requiring litigation in a foreign jurisdiction (at least where the contract is not entered into in North Carolina), and the heavy burden placed on parties wishing to avoid them, see Perkins, 333 N.C. at 146 , 423 S.E.2d at 784 , the Court concludes that the common law principles applied in North Carolina to extend the reach of arbitration agreements may also be applied to forum selection clauses. {60} In this case, SAG negotiated directly with th | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Perkins v. CCH Computax, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942 , 947 (11th Cir. 1999))). {59} Given the strong seal of approval that our Supreme Court has given to contract clauses requiring litigation in a foreign jurisdiction (at least where the contract is not entered into in North Carolina), and the heavy burden placed on parties wishing to avoid them, see Perkins, 333 N.C. at 146 , 423 S.E.2d at 784 , the Court concludes that the common law principles applied in North Carolina to extend the reach of arbitration agreements may also be applied to forum selection clauses. {60} In this case, SAG negotiated directly with th 2009Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942 , 947 (11th Cir. 1999))). {59} Given the strong seal of approval that our Supreme Court has given to contract clauses requiring litigation in a foreign jurisdiction (at least where the contract is not entered into in North Carolina), and the heavy burden placed on parties wishing to avoid them, see Perkins, 333 N.C. at 146 , 423 S.E.2d at 784 , the Court concludes that the common law principles applied in North Carolina to extend the reach of arbitration agreements may also be applied to forum selection clauses. {60} In this case, SAG negotiated directly with th | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.