power rule (Arkansas) · Go Syfert
← Arkansas issues

power rule in Arkansas

6 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1909–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Republic of Iraq v. ABB AGgreen
nysd · 2011 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015See Republic of Iraq v. ABB AG, 769 F. Supp. 2d 605, 610, n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). 7 Cite as 2015 Ark. 58 or counterclaim.” Bigge claims, therefore, that the parties intended for an arbitrator to determine whether a dispute was arbitrable.

11
Bigge Crane & Rigging Co. v. Entergy Arkansas, Inc.green
ark · 2015 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015See Republic of Iraq v. ABB AG, 769 F. Supp. 2d 605, 610, n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). 7 Cite as 2015 Ark. 58 or counterclaim.” Bigge claims, therefore, that the parties intended for an arbitrator to determine whether a dispute was arbitrable.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc. green
scotus · 2003
2 sentences

2016As explained by the arbitrator, Rule 7 of the Rules of the AAA provides that the “arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” In addressing the jurisdictional- questions, the arbitrator explained that the FAA applied to all contracts “evideneirig a transaction involving commerce.” In addressing the basic question of “What is a transaction involving commerce?” the arbitrator cited a 1995 United States Supreme C

2016As explained by the arbitrator, Rule 7 of the Rules of the AAA provides that the “arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” In addressing the jurisdictional- questions, the arbitrator explained that the FAA applied to all contracts “evideneirig a transaction involving commerce.” In addressing the basic question of “What is a transaction involving commerce?” the arbitrator cited a 1995 United States Supreme C

12016–2016
Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson green
scotus · 1995
2 sentences

2016As explained by the arbitrator, Rule 7 of the Rules of the AAA provides that the “arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” In addressing the jurisdictional- questions, the arbitrator explained that the FAA applied to all contracts “evideneirig a transaction involving commerce.” In addressing the basic question of “What is a transaction involving commerce?” the arbitrator cited a 1995 United States Supreme C

2016As explained by the arbitrator, Rule 7 of the Rules of the AAA provides that the “arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” In addressing the jurisdictional- questions, the arbitrator explained that the FAA applied to all contracts “evideneirig a transaction involving commerce.” In addressing the basic question of “What is a transaction involving commerce?” the arbitrator cited a 1995 United States Supreme C

12016–2016
Awuah v. Coverall North America, Inc. green
ca1 · 2009
1 sentence

2012More specifically, it incorporates the AAA Rules, which expressly state that the arbitrator “shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.” Further, the arbitration clause provides for arbitration “to the exclusion of any court of law.” As the First Circuit so determined in Awuah, supra, we also cannot conclude that the inclusion of a severability clause in the contract negates the plain manifestation of intent expressed in the delegation provision.

12012–2012
Layne v. Strode green
ark · 1958
2 sentences

2009Layne v. Strode, 229 Ark. 513 , 317 S.W.2d 6 (1958).

2009Layne v. Strode, 229 Ark. 513 , 317 S.W.2d 6 (1958).

12009–2009
Vinsant v. Knox neutral
· 1871
1 sentence

1912In the amendment carrying to the people this power is the clause in question, “The style of all bills shall be, ‘Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Arkansas.’ ” As long ago as 1871 this court, in Vinsant v. Knox, 27 Ark. 266 , held that the constitutional provision that the style of all bills should be, “Be it Enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas,” was mandatory, and that a bill without this style (or substantially this style) was void, although otherwise regularly passed and approved. .

11912–1912
United States v. Shipp green
· 1906
1 sentence

1909United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 709 ; United States v. Shipp, 203 U. S. 563 .

11909–1909

Where else courts name it

CA 97 (1874–2026) NY 83 (1887–2024) TX 61 (1914–2025) FL 35 (1918–2026) PA 29 (1851–2026) IL 22 (1903–2025) MA 22 (1851–2025) IN 18 (1873–2020) LA 17 (1995–2025) WA 17 (1950–2023) NJ 16 (1936–2021) AL 16 (1902–2026) CT 16 (1941–2023) MO 16 (1895–2022) WI 14 (1964–2018) OR 14 (1901–2021) GA 12 (1937–2025) NC 11 (1904–2021) MI 10 (2008–2023) KS 9 (1912–2022) IA 7 (1922–2023) WY 6 (1892–2014) MD 6 (1928–2000) KY 6 (1916–2024) MN 6 (1926–1982) AR 6 (1909–2016) AZ 6 (1973–2023) ID 5 (1921–1991) DE 5 (2014–2018) VA 5 (1905–2024) CO 5 (1998–2026) AK 5 (1983–1999) ME 4 (1917–2012) TN 4 (1950–2015) UT 4 (1936–2024) HI 4 (1984–2024) OH 3 (1907–1994) MS 3 (1984–2001) OK 3 (1915–2003) WV 3 (1909–2015) RI 3 (1970–1995) NE 3 (1904–1988) ND 2 (2016–2017) DC 2 (1984–2012) SC 2 (1959–2005)

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