mandatory arbitration clause (New Jersey) · Go Syfert
← New Jersey issues

mandatory arbitration clause in New Jersey

6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Industrial Electronics Corp. Of Wisconsin v. Ipower Distribution Group, Inc.green
ca7 · 2000 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2008–2009
2 sentences

2009Group, Inc., 215 F. 3d 677, 681 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that "[a] dispute that arises under one agreement may be litigated notwithstanding a mandatory arbitration clause in a second agreement, even where the two agreements are closely intertwined"); Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ., 359 F. 3d 292, 295 (3d Cir.2004) (same).

2008Group, Inc., 215 F.3d 677, 681 (7th Cir.2000) (holding that “[a] dispute that arises under one agreement may be litigated notwithstanding a mandatory arbitration clause in a second agreement, even where the two agreements are closely intertwined.”); Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ., 359 F.3d 292, 295 (3d Cir.2004) (same).

22
Christian Bouriez Montanelle Beheer B v. V. Carnegie Mellon Universitygreen
ca3 · 2004 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2008–2009
2 sentences

2009Group, Inc., 215 F. 3d 677, 681 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that "[a] dispute that arises under one agreement may be litigated notwithstanding a mandatory arbitration clause in a second agreement, even where the two agreements are closely intertwined"); Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ., 359 F. 3d 292, 295 (3d Cir.2004) (same).

2008Group, Inc., 215 F.3d 677, 681 (7th Cir.2000) (holding that “[a] dispute that arises under one agreement may be litigated notwithstanding a mandatory arbitration clause in a second agreement, even where the two agreements are closely intertwined.”); Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ., 359 F.3d 292, 295 (3d Cir.2004) (same).

22
Kernahan v. Home Warranty Adm'r of Fla., Inc.green
nj · 2019 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024Instead, it points out that Coscia concedes both he and Choice are parties to a home warranty contract, number 715799774, that contains a mandatory arbitration clause governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 , which it argues passes muster under Kernahan v. Home Warranty Administrator of Florida, Inc., 236 N.J. 301, 319 (2019), requiring we affirm the trial court's decision to send the case to arbitration.

11
Specht v. Netscape Communications Corporationgreen
ca2 · 2002 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011Id. at 25.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Melcar Utility Co. green
nj · 2013
1 sentence

2024Plaintiffs' citation of Jersey Central Power & Light Company v. Melcar adds nothing more to their theory, as it held that the UFPA's mandatory arbitration clause, N.J.S.A. 48:2-80(d), was unconstitutional, and did not vitiate a utility company's state constitutional right to trial by jury in the company's negligence suit for damages against an excavator. 212 N.J. at 600 .

12024–2024
Circuit City Stores, Inc. A Virginia Corporation v. Saint Clair Adams, a California Resident green
ca9 · 2002
2 sentences

2002Moreover, as was the case in Circuit City Stores, supra, because the arbitration clause in defendant’s application form lacked mutuality, plaintiff’s employer “was free to bring suit in court or arbitrate any dispute with its employees.” 279 F.3d at 893 .

2002Moreover, as was the case in Circuit City Stores, supra, because the arbitration clause in defendant’s application form lacked mutuality, plaintiff’s employer “was free to bring suit in court or arbitrate any dispute with its employees.” 279 F.3d at 893 .

12002–2002

Where else courts name it

WA 14 (1995–2015) IL 13 (1993–2021) CA 11 (1990–2018) NY 9 (2005–2025) NJ 6 (2002–2024) PA 6 (2007–2019) NM 6 (2001–2012) MD 6 (1987–2017) CO 4 (1997–2018) TX 4 (2000–2024) MO 4 (2006–2016) OH 3 (2000–2024) ME 3 (1997–2011) MN 3 (2005–2016) AZ 3 (1995–2017) LA 3 (1986–2015) KS 3 (1998–2008) GA 2 (1981–2003) UT 2 (2023–2024) DC 2 (1990–2002) VA 2 (1995–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check