validity of the arbitration clause (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

validity of the arbitration clause in Missouri

6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Missouri 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
State v. Hansengreen
moctapp · 1990 · cited in 3 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2004–2007
2 sentences

2007Corp., 785 S.W.2d at 112, and to compel arbitration or stay pending court proceedings.

2004Corp., 785 S.W.2d at 112 , and to compel arbitration or stay pending court proceedings.

13
Deiab v. Shawgreen
moctapp · 2003 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2008
2 sentences

2008Deiab v. Shaw, 138 S.W.3d 741, 743 (Mo.App.

2006Id.

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Preston v. Ferrer green
scotus · 2008
2 sentences

2016And when parties commit to arbitrate contractual disputes, it is a mainstay of the Act’s substantive law that attacks on the validity of the contract, as distinct from attacks on the validity of the arbitration clause itself are to be resolved “by the arbitrator in the fírst instance, not by a federal or state court.” Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346, 349 , 128 S.Ct. 978 , 169 L.Ed.2d 917 (2008); see also Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg.

2016And when parties commit to arbitrate contractual disputes, it is a mainstay of the Act’s substantive law that attacks on the validity of the contract, as distinct from attacks on the validity of the arbitration clause itself are to be resolved “by the arbitrator in the fírst instance, not by a federal or state court.” Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346, 349 , 128 S.Ct. 978 , 169 L.Ed.2d 917 (2008); see also Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg.

12016–2016
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. green
scotus · 1967
2 sentences

2016Co., 388 U.S. 395 ; 87 S.Ct. 1801 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967).

2016Co., 388 U.S. 395 ; 87 S.Ct. 1801 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967).

12016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.350 (4) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.440 (4) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.430 (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 33 (1992–2025) NY 17 (1976–2025) TX 14 (2001–2024) OH 13 (1995–2026) OK 12 (2006–2020) IL 11 (2004–2022) AL 9 (1992–2002) FL 9 (1993–2021) WA 7 (1972–2018) MT 6 (1989–2016) MO 6 (2004–2016) SC 6 (2003–2023) DC 5 (2006–2015) WV 5 (2012–2020) CO 4 (1982–2014) GA 3 (1999–2009) WI 3 (2015–2015) KY 3 (2001–2008) LA 3 (2015–2018) NJ 2 (2005–2024) MS 2 (2012–2013) PA 2 (1982–2015) IA 2 (2014–2020) MD 2 (1994–2003) MI 2 (2022–2022)

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