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 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegnagreen2 sentences2012Applying the then-extant United States Arbitration Act of 1925 ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-14 ), the United States Supreme Court determined that "if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itselfan issue which goes to the `making' of the agreement to arbitratethe federal court may proceed to adjudicate it," but that court cannot "consider claims of fraud in the inducement of *921 the contract generally." Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 403-04 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 . ¶ 13 The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its Prima Paint decision in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 2012Applying the then-extant United States Arbitration Act of 1925 ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-14 ), the United States Supreme Court determined that "if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itselfan issue which goes to the `making' of the agreement to arbitratethe federal court may proceed to adjudicate it," but that court cannot "consider claims of fraud in the inducement of *921 the contract generally." Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 403-04 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 . ¶ 13 The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its Prima Paint decision in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 | 3 | 6 |
McKee v. AT&T Corp.green2 sentences2009Id.; accord McKee, 164 Wn.2d at 394 (contrasting McKee’s challenge to the arbitration provision to Buckeye, where the challenge was to the validity of the entire contract (citing Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445 , 126 S. Ct. 1204 , 163 L. 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 |
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.green2 sentences2012Applying the then-extant United States Arbitration Act of 1925 ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-14 ), the United States Supreme Court determined that "if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itselfan issue which goes to the `making' of the agreement to arbitratethe federal court may proceed to adjudicate it," but that court cannot "consider claims of fraud in the inducement of *921 the contract generally." Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 403-04 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 . ¶ 13 The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its Prima Paint decision in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 2012Applying the then-extant United States Arbitration Act of 1925 ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-14 ), the United States Supreme Court determined that "if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itselfan issue which goes to the `making' of the agreement to arbitratethe federal court may proceed to adjudicate it," but that court cannot "consider claims of fraud in the inducement of *921 the contract generally." Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 403-04 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 . ¶ 13 The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its Prima Paint decision in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 | 2 | 5 |
McKee v. AT & T CORP.green2 sentences2009McKee 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 2009Id.; accord McKee, 164 Wash.2d at 394 , 191 P.3d 845 (citing Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006)) (contrasting McKees challenge to the arbitration provision to Buckeye, where the challenge was to the validity of the entire contract). ¶ 15 This distinction, between section 2 and 3 of RCW 7.04A.060, also comports with the separability doctrine implied in the statute. | 2 | 2 |
Pinkis v. Network Cinema Corp.green2 sentences2009McKee 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 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 | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.