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 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Richmond American Homes of West Virginia, Inc. v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2021Va. 125 , 717 S.E.2d 909 (2011): Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2 , and the doctrine of severability, only if a party to a contract explicitly challenges the enforceability of an arbitration clause within the contract, as opposed to generally challenging the contract as a whole, is a trial court permitted to consider the challenge to the arbitration clause. . . . 2020Va. 125, 129 , 717 S.E.2d 909, 913 (2011), we said in part: Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2 , and the doctrine of severability, only if a party to a contract explicitly challenges the enforceability of an arbitration clause within the contract, as opposed to generally challenging the contract as a whole, is a trial court permitted to consider the challenge to the arbitration clause. | 2 | 7 |
Nationstar Mortgage v. Adam and Bethany Westgreen2 sentences2017Standard of Review As this Court held in syllabus point one of Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Front, 231 W.Va. 518 , 745 S.E.2d 556 (2013), “[a]n order denying a motion to compel arbitration is an interlocutory ruling which is subject to immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.” Moreover, “[i]n cases, such as this, where the challenge to the arbitration clause is based on unconscionability, the issue presented is a question of law controlled by contract principles.” Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. West, 237 W.Va. 84, 87-88 , 785 S.E.2d 634, 637-38 (2016). 2017Standard of Review As this Court held in syllabus point one of Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Front, 231 W.Va. 518 , 745 S.E.2d 556 (2013), “[a]n order denying a motion to compel arbitration is an interlocutory ruling which is subject to immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.” Moreover, “[i]n cases, such as this, where the challenge to the arbitration clause is based on unconscionability, the issue presented is a question of law controlled by contract principles.” Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. West, 237 W.Va. 84, 87-88 , 785 S.E.2d 634, 637-38 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Robert J. and Billye S. Front, etc.
green
2 sentences2017Standard of Review As this Court held in syllabus point one of Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Front, 231 W.Va. 518 , 745 S.E.2d 556 (2013), “[a]n order denying a motion to compel arbitration is an interlocutory ruling which is subject to immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.” Moreover, “[i]n cases, such as this, where the challenge to the arbitration clause is based on unconscionability, the issue presented is a question of law controlled by contract principles.” Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. West, 237 W.Va. 84, 87-88 , 785 S.E.2d 634, 637-38 (2016). 2017Standard of Review As this Court held in syllabus point one of Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Front, 231 W.Va. 518 , 745 S.E.2d 556 (2013), “[a]n order denying a motion to compel arbitration is an interlocutory ruling which is subject to immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.” Moreover, “[i]n cases, such as this, where the challenge to the arbitration clause is based on unconscionability, the issue presented is a question of law controlled by contract principles.” Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. West, 237 W.Va. 84, 87-88 , 785 S.E.2d 634, 637-38 (2016). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.