contract containing an arbitration clause (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

contract containing an arbitration clause in Connecticut

5 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2007 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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
Asplundh Tree Expert Company v. Robert E. Batesgreen
ca6 · 1995 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1997–1998
2 sentences

1998The trial court cited Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Bates, 71 F.3d 592, 595 (6th Cir. 1995), for the general proposition that a guarantor who is not a signatory to a contract containing an arbitration clause is not bound by such a clause.

1997It has been said that as a general rule a guarantor who is not signatory to a contract containing an arbitration clause is not bound by such a clause, Asplundh Tree Expert v. Bates, 71 F.3d 592 , 595 (CA 6, 1995).

12
Brown v. Pacific Life Insurancegreen
ca5 · 2006 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007Co., 462 F.3d 384, 397 (5th Cir. 2006) (Declining to address claims that “fraud and error” vitiated a contract containing an arbitration clause because the plaintiff investors did “not distinguish between their attacks on the validity of the client agreements and the arbitration clauses themselves.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc. green
conn · 1992
2 sentences

2001In response, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs. 1 General Statutes § 52-410 provides a mechanism by which a party to a contract containing an arbitration clause who desires arbitration of a dispute, "may apply to the trial court . . . for an order directing the CT Page 2433 parties to proceed with arbitration. 2 . . .[I]n granting or denying an order directing the parties to proceed with arbitration under § 52-410 , the trial court must determine whether the contract between the parties provides for arbitration." (Emphasis in original.) Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington

1994Section 52-410 provides a mechanism by which a party to a contract containing an arbitration clause, who desires arbitration of a dispute, “may apply to the trial court . . . for an order directing the parties to proceed with arbitration.” (Emphasis in original.) Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., 223 Conn. 761, 768 , 613 A.2d 1320 (1992). “[I]n granting or denying an order directing the parties to proceed with arbitration under § 52-410, the trial court must determine whether the contract between the parties provides for arbitration.” Id., 768-69.

21994–2001
Scinto v. Sosin green
conn · 1999
1 sentence

2001"Arbitration is a creature of contract and without a contractual agreement to arbitrate there can be no arbitration. . . .No one can be directed to arbitrate a dispute who has not previously agreed to do so. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Scinto v. Sosin , 51 Conn. App. 222 , 227 (1998), cert. denied, 247 Conn. 963 (1999).

12001–2001
Scinto v. Sosin green
connappct · 1998
1 sentence

2001"Arbitration is a creature of contract and without a contractual agreement to arbitrate there can be no arbitration. . . .No one can be directed to arbitrate a dispute who has not previously agreed to do so. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Scinto v. Sosin , 51 Conn. App. 222 , 227 (1998), cert. denied, 247 Conn. 963 (1999).

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

TX 93 (2001–2026) CA 44 (1949–2025) AL 27 (1983–2016) FL 13 (1999–2025) NY 13 (1930–2024) LA 12 (1977–2020) IL 10 (1981–2026) MS 10 (2000–2018) OH 10 (1998–2025) SC 9 (2004–2024) NC 8 (2005–2023) NJ 6 (2006–2020) MO 6 (1996–2016) MA 5 (1976–2017) CT 5 (1994–2007) CO 4 (2001–2019) GA 4 (2001–2025) DC 4 (1981–1996) ND 3 (1989–2021) NM 3 (2001–2014) WV 3 (2012–2022) HI 3 (2007–2013) DE 3 (2008–2024) AZ 3 (2011–2017) NE 3 (2015–2018) IN 3 (2012–2020) NV 2 (2015–2023) KS 2 (1984–2009) WA 2 (2007–2007) OR 2 (2011–2019) MT 2 (2000–2008)

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