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.
5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.green2 sentences2016Because “the arbitrator’s authority derives from the consent of the parties,” preliminary “gateway disputéis] about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raise[ ] ... question[s] of arbitrability for the court to decide.” Id. (citing Howsam, supra, 537 U.S. at 84 , 123 S.Ct. 588 ). 2016Because “the arbitrator’s authority derives from the consent of the parties,” preliminary “gateway disputéis] about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raise[ ] ... question[s] of arbitrability for the court to decide.” Id. (citing Howsam, supra, 537 U.S. at 84 , 123 S.Ct. 588 ). | 1 | 4 |
Woodland Ltd. Partnership v. Wulffgreen2 sentences2021P’ship v. Wulff, 868 A.2d 860, 864 (D.C. 2005)). 2016Because “the arbitrator’s authority derives from the consent of the parties,” preliminary “gateway disputéis] about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raise[ ] ... question[s] of arbitrability for the court to decide.” Id. (citing Howsam, supra, 537 U.S. at 84 , 123 S.Ct. 588 ). | 1 | 2 |
ABU NASER HOSSAIN v. JMU PROPERTIES, LLCgreen1 sentence2021Because “‘the arbitrator’s authority derives from the consent of the parties,’” it is the court’s responsibility to settle “the basic contractual question” of “‘whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause.’” Hossain v. JMU Props., LLC, 147 A.3d 816, 821 (D.C. 2016) (quoting Woodland Ltd. | 1 | 1 |
Grad v. Wetherholt Galleriesgreen1 sentence2005This is a question we have not previously addressed. 4 In Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84 , 123 S.Ct. 588 , 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002), the Court held that whereas “a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide,” the question of the applicability of a particular rule of the specific arbitration system agreed upon by the parties (in that case the NASD Uniform Submission Agreement) -was for the arbitrator, who • was well-qualified to address the issue. .The allocation of decision-maki | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers
green
2 sentences2005Thus, where a party challenges the arbitrability of a dispute, it is the very authority.of the arbitrator to decide that is at issue, and the presumption is that the court must first settle the basic contractual question, unless the parties “clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.” See id. (quoting AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 649 , 106 S.Ct. 1415 , 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986)). 2005Thus, where a party challenges the arbitrability of a dispute, it is the very authority.of the arbitrator to decide that is at issue, and the presumption is that the court must first settle the basic contractual question, unless the parties “clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.” See id. (quoting AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 649 , 106 S.Ct. 1415 , 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan
green
2 sentences2005This is a question we have not previously addressed. 4 In Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84 , 123 S.Ct. 588 , 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002), the Court held that whereas “a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide,” the question of the applicability of a particular rule of the specific arbitration system agreed upon by the parties (in that case the NASD Uniform Submission Agreement) -was for the arbitrator, who • was well-qualified to address the issue. .The allocation of decision-maki 2005This is a question we have not previously addressed. 4 In Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84 , 123 S.Ct. 588 , 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002), the Court held that whereas “a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide,” the question of the applicability of a particular rule of the specific arbitration system agreed upon by the parties (in that case the NASD Uniform Submission Agreement) -was for the arbitrator, who • was well-qualified to address the issue. .The allocation of decision-maki | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.