Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vertical Resources, Inc. v. Bramlettgreen2 sentences2009“An issue is important if the interests that would potentially go unprotected without immediate appellate review of that issue are significant relative to the efficiency interest, which is the avoidance of piecemeal litigation of appeals, sought to be advanced by the final judgment rule.” Vertical Resources, Inc. v. Bramlett, 837 A.2d 1193, 1200 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶ 17 Appellant advances the public policy argument that “given that the insurance industry is pervasively dropping the mandatory arbitration clause from the standard insurance policy, the courts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are 2009"An issue is important if the interests that would potentially go unprotected without immediate appellate review of that issue are significant relative to the efficiency interest, which is the avoidance of piecemeal litigation of appeals, sought to be advanced by the final judgment rule." Vertical Resources, Inc. v. Bramlett, 837 A.2d 1193, 1200 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶ 17 Appellant advances the public policy argument that "given that the insurance industry is pervasively dropping the mandatory arbitration clause from the standard insurance policy, the courts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are | 1 | 1 |
Johnston County v. R. N. Rouse & Co.green2 sentences2007Rouse & Co., Inc., 331 N.C. 88 , 414 S.E.2d 30, 34 (1992) (applying North Carolina law to the interpretation of a construction contract and concluding that the consent to jurisdiction clause did not in any way constrain the plain meaning of the mandatory arbitration clause). ¶ 23 Finally, in Internet East, Inc. v. Duro Communications, Inc., 146 N.C.App. 401 , 553 S.E.2d 84 (2001), a North Carolina appellate court considered whether an agreement to arbitrate, which contained a limiting clause similar to that in the instant case, was eviscerated by a forum selection clause. 2007Rouse & Co., Inc., 331 N.C. 88 , 414 S.E.2d 30, 34 (1992) (applying North Carolina law to the interpretation of a construction contract and concluding that the consent to jurisdiction clause did not in any way constrain the plain meaning of the mandatory arbitration clause). ¶ 23 Finally, in Internet East, Inc. v. Duro Communications, Inc., 146 N.C.App. 401 , 553 S.E.2d 84 (2001), a North Carolina appellate court considered whether an agreement to arbitrate, which contained a limiting clause similar to that in the instant case, was eviscerated by a forum selection clause. | 1 | 1 |
Internet East, Inc. v. Duro Communications, Inc.green2 sentences2007Rouse & Co., Inc., 331 N.C. 88 , 414 S.E.2d 30, 34 (1992) (applying North Carolina law to the interpretation of a construction contract and concluding that the consent to jurisdiction clause did not in any way constrain the plain meaning of the mandatory arbitration clause). ¶ 23 Finally, in Internet East, Inc. v. Duro Communications, Inc., 146 N.C.App. 401 , 553 S.E.2d 84 (2001), a North Carolina appellate court considered whether an agreement to arbitrate, which contained a limiting clause similar to that in the instant case, was eviscerated by a forum selection clause. 2007Rouse & Co., Inc., 331 N.C. 88 , 414 S.E.2d 30, 34 (1992) (applying North Carolina law to the interpretation of a construction contract and concluding that the consent to jurisdiction clause did not in any way constrain the plain meaning of the mandatory arbitration clause). ¶ 23 Finally, in Internet East, Inc. v. Duro Communications, Inc., 146 N.C.App. 401 , 553 S.E.2d 84 (2001), a North Carolina appellate court considered whether an agreement to arbitrate, which contained a limiting clause similar to that in the instant case, was eviscerated by a forum selection clause. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019The form included a mandatory arbitration clause:4 I/we acknowledge and agree all disputes under and relating to the limited warranty (including disputes on which issues shall be submitted to arbitration; alleged breach of the limited warranty; and alleged violations of statutes or regulations relating to consumer protection or unfair trade practices) shall be submitted to binding arbitration before an independent third party arbitration organization. . . . ____________________________________________ 4 The sale agreements between Appellant and the original purchasers also included a mandatory 2019The form included a mandatory arbitration clause:4 I/we acknowledge and agree all disputes under and relating to the limited warranty (including disputes on which issues shall be submitted to arbitration; alleged breach of the limited warranty; and alleged violations of statutes or regulations relating to consumer protection or unfair trade practices) shall be submitted to binding arbitration before an independent third party arbitration organization. . . . ____________________________________________ 4 The sale agreements between Appellant and the original purchasers also included a mandatory | 3 | 2016–2019 |
Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. B. Keppel Trucking, LLC
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 1093 . 2019Id. at 1093 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Anderson v. United States
green
1 sentence2016While “the courts of this Commonwealth- strongly favor the settlement of disputes by arbitration,” 8 “arbitration agreements are to be strictly construed and such agreements] should not be extended by implication.” 9 Here, relying on this Court’s decision in Pisano, supra, cert. denied, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2890 , 189 L.Ed.2d 838 (2014), the court concisely found the following: The issue before this court was whether the mandatory arbitration clause extended to a third party. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Cohen v. Comm'r
green
2 sentences2016While “the courts of this Commonwealth- strongly favor the settlement of disputes by arbitration,” 8 “arbitration agreements are to be strictly construed and such agreements] should not be extended by implication.” 9 Here, relying on this Court’s decision in Pisano, supra, cert. denied, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2890 , 189 L.Ed.2d 838 (2014), the court concisely found the following: The issue before this court was whether the mandatory arbitration clause extended to a third party. 2016While “the courts of this Commonwealth strongly favor the settlement of disputes by arbitration,”8 “arbitration agreements are to be strictly construed and such agreement[s] should not be extended by implication.”9 Here, relying on this Court’s decision in Pisano, supra, cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2890 (U.S. 2014), the court concisely found the following: The issue before this court was whether the mandatory arbitration clause extended to a third party. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Dodds v. Pulte Home Corp.
green
2 sentences2012Id. 2012Id. at 350-51 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.