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.
7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grand Wireless, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.green1 sentence2016Any other rule, in the view of these courts, would permit the party bringing the complaint to avoid the practical consequences of having signed an agreement to arbitrate; naming the other party’s officers, directors or employees as defendants along with the corporation would absolve the party of all obligations to arbitrate. [Grand Wireless, Inc v Verizon Wireless, Inc, 748 F3d 1, 11 (CA 1, 2014), citing Arnold, 920 F2d at 1281.] For the above reasons, we hold that agency principles apply in determining who is included within the scope of the arbitration clause. | 1 | 1 |
Heurtebise v. Reliable Business Computers, Incgreen2 sentences2012However, even if the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, for the reasons I stated in Heurtebise v Reliable Business Computers, Inc, 452 Mich 405, 414-438 (1996) (opinion by CAVANAGH, J.), the arbitration clause in this case is not enforceable because an employee’s prospective waiver of the constitutional right to litigate a civil rights claim in a judicial forum is contrary to the Legislature’s intent when it enacted the CRA and the people’s intent when they adopted the Michigan Constitution in 1963, see id. at 426-436 . 2012However, even if the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, for the reasons I stated in Heurtebise v Reliable Business Computers, Inc, 452 Mich 405, 414-438 (1996) (opinion by CAVANAGH, J.), the arbitration clause in this case is not enforceable because an employee’s prospective waiver of the constitutional right to litigate a civil rights claim in a judicial forum is contrary to the Legislature’s intent when it enacted the CRA and the people’s intent when they adopted the Michigan Constitution in 1963, see id. at 426-436 . | 1 | 1 |
Northland Insurance Co. v. Snygreen2 sentences1990See Northland Ins Co v Sny, 98 Mich App 507 ; 296 NW2d 292 (1980). 1990See Northland Ins Co v Sny, 98 Mich App 507 ; 296 NW2d 292 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Altobelli v. Hartmann
green
2 sentences2026The Court explained that “because these particular defendants are clearly endowed with agency authority to administer the Firm’s affairs, the individually named defendants must be included within the meaning of ‘the Firm’ in the arbitration clause.” Id. at 302 . 2026Therefore, the acts of officers and agents of a corporation, within the scope of their employment, are the acts of the corporation. [Id. at 296-297 (quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted).] The Court held that “agency principles apply in determining who is included within the scope of the arbitration clause.” Id. at 299 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
green
1 sentence2018In addition, these issues always include whether the clause was agreed to, and may include when that agreement was formed. [ Granite Rock Co , 561 US at 297 .] More recently, in BG Group PLC , 572 U.S. at 28 -29 , 134 S.Ct. 1198 , the United States Supreme Court considered whether interpretation of a contractual provision regarding arbitration in a treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina presented a substantive gateway issue for the courts to determine or a procedural matter best reserved to the arbitrator. 9 Noting that the "text and structure of the provision make clear that it opera | 1 | 2018–2018 |
BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina
green
2 sentences2018In addition, these issues always include whether the clause was agreed to, and may include when that agreement was formed. [ Granite Rock Co , 561 US at 297 .] More recently, in BG Group PLC , 572 U.S. at 28 -29 , 134 S.Ct. 1198 , the United States Supreme Court considered whether interpretation of a contractual provision regarding arbitration in a treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina presented a substantive gateway issue for the courts to determine or a procedural matter best reserved to the arbitrator. 9 Noting that the "text and structure of the provision make clear that it opera 2018In addition, these issues always include whether the clause was agreed to, and may include when that agreement was formed. [ Granite Rock Co , 561 US at 297 .] More recently, in BG Group PLC , 572 U.S. at 28 -29 , 134 S.Ct. 1198 , the United States Supreme Court considered whether interpretation of a contractual provision regarding arbitration in a treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina presented a substantive gateway issue for the courts to determine or a procedural matter best reserved to the arbitrator. 9 Noting that the "text and structure of the provision make clear that it opera | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Construction, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016With respect to who is included, we begin with the plain language of the clause, asking whether the parties to the Operating Agreement intended to include these particular defendants within the meaning of “the Firm.” See Miller-Davis, 495 Mich at 174 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Altobelli v. Hartmann
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kyser v. KASSON TOWNSHIP
green
1 sentence2015Whether a matter is subject to arbitration is determined by applying the following three- part test: 1) is there an arbitration agreement in a contract between the parties; 2) is the disputed issue on its face or arguably within the contract’s arbitration clause; -3- and 3) is the dispute expressly exempted from arbitration by the terms of the contract. [In re Nestorovski Estate, 283 Mich App 177, 202 ; 769 NW2d 720 (2009).] In the present case, the Oppenheims and defendants do not dispute that their later transactions were subject to an arbitration clause that provided: ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Nestorovski Estate
green
1 sentence2015Whether a matter is subject to arbitration is determined by applying the following three- part test: 1) is there an arbitration agreement in a contract between the parties; 2) is the disputed issue on its face or arguably within the contract’s arbitration clause; -3- and 3) is the dispute expressly exempted from arbitration by the terms of the contract. [In re Nestorovski Estate, 283 Mich App 177, 202 ; 769 NW2d 720 (2009).] In the present case, the Oppenheims and defendants do not dispute that their later transactions were subject to an arbitration clause that provided: ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Nestle Waters North America, Inc. v. Bollman
green
1 sentence2011Id. at 505 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.