7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pinkis v. Network Cinema Corp.green2 sentences2009McKee v. AT&T Corp., 164 Wn.2d 372, 394 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008) (when the validity of the arbitration agreement itself is at issue, a court, not an arbitrator, must first determine whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate). ¶14 In Pinkis v. Network Cinema Corp., litigated under the substantially similar provision of the FAA, we held that the statutory language did not permit the court to consider the general challenge to the contract. 9 Wn. 2009McKee v. AT&T Corp., 164 Wash.2d 372, 394 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008) (when the validity of the arbitration agreement itself is at issue, a court, not an arbitrator, must first determine whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate). *236 ¶ 14 In Pinkis v. Network Cinema Corporation, litigated under the substantially similar provision of the FAA, we held that the statutory language did not permit the court to consider the general challenge to the contract. 9 Wash.App. 337, 342, 346 , 512 P.2d 751 (1973) The plaintiff had challenged the validity of the entire contract on the basis of fraud in the | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McKee v. AT&T Corp.
green
2 sentences2012It said that under RCW 7.04A.060(2), "a court may entertain only a challenge to the validity of the arbitration clause itself, not a challenge to the validity of the contract containing the arbitration clause." Townsend, 153 Wash.App. at 879-80 , 224 P.3d 818 (citing McKee v. AT & T Corp., 164 Wash.2d 372, 394 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008)). ¶ 11 In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals looked to provisions of the uniform arbitration act (UAA), chapter 7.04A RCW. 2012App. at 879 -80 (citing McKee v. AT&T Corp., 164 Wn.2d 372, 394 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008)). ¶11 In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals looked to provisions of the uniform arbitration act (UAA), chapter 7.04A RCW. | 5 | 2009–2012 |
McKee v. AT & T CORP.
green
2 sentences2012It said that under RCW 7.04A.060(2), "a court may entertain only a challenge to the validity of the arbitration clause itself, not a challenge to the validity of the contract containing the arbitration clause." Townsend, 153 Wash.App. at 879-80 , 224 P.3d 818 (citing McKee v. AT & T Corp., 164 Wash.2d 372, 394 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008)). ¶ 11 In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals looked to provisions of the uniform arbitration act (UAA), chapter 7.04A RCW. 2012App. at 879 -80 (citing McKee v. AT&T Corp., 164 Wn.2d 372, 394 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008)). ¶11 In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals looked to provisions of the uniform arbitration act (UAA), chapter 7.04A RCW. | 5 | 2009–2012 |
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp.
green
2 sentences2012It said that under RCW 7.04A.060(2), "a court may entertain only a challenge to the validity of the arbitration clause itself, not a challenge to the validity of the contract containing the arbitration clause." Townsend, 153 Wash.App. at 879-80 , 224 P.3d 818 (citing McKee v. AT & T Corp., 164 Wash.2d 372, 394 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008)). ¶ 11 In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals looked to provisions of the uniform arbitration act (UAA), chapter 7.04A RCW. 2012It said that under RCW 7.04A-.060(2), “a court may entertain only a challenge to the validity of the arbitration clause itself, not a challenge to the validity of the contract containing the arbitration clause.” Townsend, 153 Wn. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Stein v. Geonerco, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018This is particularly a concern where an arbitration *288 clause imposes all or some of the costs of arbitration on the disfavored party." Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp.
green
2 sentences2012It said that under RCW 7.04A.060(2), "a court may entertain only a challenge to the validity of the arbitration clause itself, not a challenge to the validity of the contract containing the arbitration clause." Townsend, 153 Wash.App. at 879-80 , 224 P.3d 818 (citing McKee v. AT & T Corp., 164 Wash.2d 372, 394 , 191 P.3d 845 (2008)). ¶ 11 In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals looked to provisions of the uniform arbitration act (UAA), chapter 7.04A RCW. 2012It further stated that the "Homeowners' challenge to the validity of the arbitration clause rests on their argument that the PSAs themselves were invalid for procedural unconscionability as contracts of adhesion." Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Loving & Evans v. Blick
green
2 sentences1972The trial court must also enter a finding as to whether there is an issue involved in the proceeding which is “referable to arbitration under such agreement.” See Loving & Evans v. Blick, 33 Cal. 2d 603 , 204 P.2d 23 (1949). 1972The trial court must also enter a finding as to whether there is an issue involved in the proceeding which is “referable to arbitration under such agreement.” See Loving & Evans v. Blick, 33 Cal. 2d 603 , 204 P.2d 23 (1949). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.