7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.green2 sentences2011Finally, the appellants assert in the alternative that even if the trial court properly consider any portion of the employment contract’s validity, courts have “a duty to determine the validity of an arbitration clause contained in a contract separately from the validity of the contract itself,” Henry v. Gonzalez, 18 S.W.3d 684, 690 (Tex.App.San Antonio 2000, pet. dism’d), because “an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract.” In re Morgan Stanley, 293 S.W.3d at 186 (citing Buckeye Check Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006) 2011Finally, the appellants assert in the alternative that even if the trial court properly consider any portion of the employment contract’s validity, courts have “a duty to determine the validity of an arbitration clause contained in a contract separately from the validity of the contract itself,” Henry v. Gonzalez , 18 S.W.3d 684, 690 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. dism’d), because “an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract.” In re Morgan Stanley , 293 S.W.3d at 186 (citing Buckeye Check, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445 (2006)). | 2 | 5 |
Rsl Funding, LLC and Rsl Special-Iv Limited Partnership v. Rickey Newsomegreen2 sentences2021RSL Funding, LLC v. Newsome, 569 S.W.3d 116, 124 (Tex. 2018); In re Morgan Stanley & Co., 293 S.W.3d 182, 187 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). 2020RSL Funding, LLC v. Newsome, 569 S.W.3d 116, 124 (Tex. 2018); In re Morgan Stanley & Co., 293 S.W.3d 182, 187 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). | 2 | 2 |
Henry v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2011Finally, the appellants assert in the alternative that even if the trial court properly consider any portion of the employment contract’s validity, courts have “a duty to determine the validity of an arbitration clause contained in a contract separately from the validity of the contract itself,” Henry v. Gonzalez, 18 S.W.3d 684, 690 (Tex.App.San Antonio 2000, pet. dism’d), because “an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract.” In re Morgan Stanley, 293 S.W.3d at 186 (citing Buckeye Check Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006) 2011Finally, the appellants assert in the alternative that even if the trial court properly consider any portion of the employment contract’s validity, courts have “a duty to determine the validity of an arbitration clause contained in a contract separately from the validity of the contract itself,” Henry v. Gonzalez , 18 S.W.3d 684, 690 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. dism’d), because “an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract.” In re Morgan Stanley , 293 S.W.3d at 186 (citing Buckeye Check, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445 (2006)). | 2 | 2 |
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegnagreen2 sentences2011Finally, the appellants assert in the alternative that even if the trial court properly consider any portion of the employment contract’s validity, courts have “a duty to determine the validity of an arbitration clause contained in a contract separately from the validity of the contract itself,” Henry v. Gonzalez, 18 S.W.3d 684, 690 (Tex.App.San Antonio 2000, pet. dism’d), because “an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract.” In re Morgan Stanley, 293 S.W.3d at 186 (citing Buckeye Check Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006) 2011Finally, the appellants assert in the alternative that even if the trial court properly consider any portion of the employment contract’s validity, courts have “a duty to determine the validity of an arbitration clause contained in a contract separately from the validity of the contract itself,” Henry v. Gonzalez, 18 S.W.3d 684, 690 (Tex.App.San Antonio 2000, pet. dism’d), because “an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract.” In re Morgan Stanley, 293 S.W.3d at 186 (citing Buckeye Check Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006) | 1 | 2 |
Dallas Cardiology Associates, P.A. v. Mallickgreen2 sentences2000See Dallas Cardiology Assoc., 978 S.W.2d at 213 ; Miller, 516 S.W.2d at 238 . 2000See Dallas Cardiology Assoc., 978 S.W.2d at 213 ; Miller, 516 S.W.2d at 238 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster
green
1 sentence2011Id. at 230-31 In AdvancePCS Health, the supreme court considered the validity of an arbitration clause contained in a provider agreement between a pharmacy benefits management company and member pharmacies. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Miller v. Puritan Fashions Corporation
green
2 sentences2000See Dallas Cardiology Assoc., 978 S.W.2d at 213 ; Miller, 516 S.W.2d at 238 . 2000See Dallas Cardiology Assoc., 978 S.W.2d at 213 ; Miller, 516 S.W.2d at 238 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.