enforceability of the arbitration clause (West Virginia) · Go Syfert
← West Virginia issues

enforceability of the arbitration clause in West Virginia

8 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2020 0 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Genesis Healthcaregreen
wva · 2011 · cited in 2 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See generally Brown I, 228 W.Va. at 675, 724 S.E.2d at 279 ; see also State ex rel.

2016See generally Brown I, 228 W.Va. at 675, 724 S.E.2d at 279 ; see also State ex rel.

22
State Ex Rel. Richmond American Homes of West Virginia, Inc. v. Sandersgreen
wva · 2011 · cited in 4 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2012–2020
2 sentences

2020Va. 125 , 717 S.E.2d 909 (2011) (“[T]he trial court may rely on general principles of state contract law in determining the enforceability of the arbitration clause.”).

2015If necessary, the trial court may consider the context of the arbitration clause within the four corners of the contract, or consider any extrinsic evidence detailing the formation and use of the contract. 228 W.Va. at 129, 717 S.E.2d at 913 .

14
State Ex Rel. TD Ameritrade, Inc. v. Kaufmangreen
wva · 2010 · cited in 1 West Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See generally Brown I, 228 W.Va. at 675 , 724 S.E.2d at 279 ; see also State ex rel.TD Ameritrade, Inc. v. Kaufman, 225 W.Va. 250, 254 , 692 S.E.2d 293, 297 (2010) (discussing authority of court, under severability doctrine, to address contractual-based challenges to arbitration clause such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability). 10 As the Wests observe, Nationstar misapprehends the nature of the presumption.

2016See generally Brown I, 228 W.Va. at 675 , 724 S.E.2d at 279 ; see also State ex rel.TD Ameritrade, Inc. v. Kaufman, 225 W.Va. 250, 254 , 692 S.E.2d 293, 297 (2010) (discussing authority of court, under severability doctrine, to address contractual-based challenges to arbitration clause such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability). 10 As the Wests observe, Nationstar misapprehends the nature of the presumption.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan green
scotus · 1995
2 sentences

2015In the context of whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate the merits of a dispute — that is, the “arbitrability” of a question — the United States Supreme Court said, “Courts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is ‘clea[r] and unmistakable]’ evidence that they did so.” First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. at 944 , 115 S.Ct. at 1924 .

2015In the context of whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate the merits of a dispute — that is, the “arbitrability” of a question — the United States Supreme Court said, “Courts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is ‘clea[r] and unmistakable]’ evidence that they did so.” First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. at 944 , 115 S.Ct. at 1924 .

22015–2015
Ewing v. Board of Education green
wva · 1998
1 sentence

2016Va. 228 , 503 S.E.2d 541 (1998). 3. “[T]he trial court may rely on general principles of state contract law in determining the enforceability of the arbitration clause.” Syl. pt. 4, in part, State ex.

12016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 9u.s.c.2 (5) USC § 9u.s.c.1 (3) USC § 9u.s.c.1-16 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 19 (1992–2026) OH 9 (2001–2021) AL 9 (1995–2016) NY 8 (1993–2016) WV 8 (2012–2020) WA 5 (2009–2012) MI 3 (2022–2024) LA 3 (2016–2018) NM 3 (2014–2016) MO 3 (2003–2008) MA 3 (1996–2015) TX 2 (2014–2023) NC 2 (2006–2015) IL 2 (2020–2025) SC 2 (2008–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check