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 1989–2013 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp.green2 sentences2010Corp., 566 A.2d 31, 39 (D.C.1989) ("We recognize that if there is a claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself — an issue which goes to the making of the agreement to arbitrate — the court may proceed to adjudicate it.") (internal citations omitted); Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1263-64 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) ("[I]t was error to hold that consideration of the uncon-scionability of the arbitration provision was to be determined by the arbitrator.... [Wjhen the crux of the complaint is ... the arbitration provision itself, then the federal courts must deci 1991See, e.g., Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp., 566 A.2d 31 (D.C.1989) (after trial court concluded that allegations of fraud in the inducement of the agreement and allegations of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause were insufficient as a matter of law, court stayed its proceedings pending arbitration). | 2 | 2 |
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.green2 sentences2013Co., 388 U.S. 395, 402 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967) (holding that it is for the federal court to adjudicate a claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself, but not claims of fraud in the inducement of the contract as a whole); Keeton v. Wells Fargo Corp., 987 A.2d 1118, 1122 (D.C.2010) (holding that a claim that the arbitration clause is unconscionable disputes *664 its validity and is for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide). 2013Co., 388 U.S. 395, 402 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967) (holding that it is for the federal court to adjudicate a claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself, but not claims of fraud in the inducement of the contract as a whole); Keeton v. Wells Fargo Corp., 987 A.2d 1118, 1122 (D.C.2010) (holding that a claim that the arbitration clause is unconscionable disputes *664 its validity and is for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide). | 1 | 3 |
Keeton v. Wells Fargo Corp.green1 sentence2013Co., 388 U.S. 395, 402 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967) (holding that it is for the federal court to adjudicate a claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself, but not claims of fraud in the inducement of the contract as a whole); Keeton v. Wells Fargo Corp., 987 A.2d 1118, 1122 (D.C.2010) (holding that a claim that the arbitration clause is unconscionable disputes *664 its validity and is for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide). | 1 | 1 |
Beverly Burden v. Check Into Cash of Kentucky, LLCgreen1 sentence2010Corp., 566 A.2d 31, 39 (D.C.1989) ("We recognize that if there is a claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself — an issue which goes to the making of the agreement to arbitrate — the court may proceed to adjudicate it.") (internal citations omitted); Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1263-64 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) ("[I]t was error to hold that consideration of the uncon-scionability of the arbitration provision was to be determined by the arbitrator.... [Wjhen the crux of the complaint is ... the arbitration provision itself, then the federal courts must deci | 1 | 1 |
Connie A. Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc. The American Arbitration Associationgreen1 sentence2010Corp., 566 A.2d 31, 39 (D.C.1989) ("We recognize that if there is a claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself — an issue which goes to the making of the agreement to arbitrate — the court may proceed to adjudicate it.") (internal citations omitted); Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1263-64 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) ("[I]t was error to hold that consideration of the uncon-scionability of the arbitration provision was to be determined by the arbitrator.... [Wjhen the crux of the complaint is ... the arbitration provision itself, then the federal courts must deci | 1 | 1 |
Moseley v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc.green2 sentences1989Co., 388 U.S. 395, 404 , 87 S.Ct. 1801, 1806 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967); see also Moseley v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc., 374 U.S. 167 , 83 S.Ct. 1815 , 10 L.Ed.2d 818 (1963). 1989Co., 388 U.S. 395, 404 , 87 S.Ct. 1801, 1806 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967); see also Moseley v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc., 374 U.S. 167 , 83 S.Ct. 1815 , 10 L.Ed.2d 818 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. 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.