5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keeton v. Wells Fargo Corp.green2 sentences2015As Keeton states, “our well-settled unconscionability standard calls for a strongly fact-dependent inquiry” and requires a court to conduct “an expedited evidentiary hearing when parties dispute the validity of the arbitration clause.” Keeton, 987 A.2d at 1119, 1121-22 . 2015As Keeton states, “our well-settled unconscionability standard calls for a strongly fact-dependent inquiry” and requires a court to conduct “an expedited evidentiary hearing when parties dispute the validity of the arbitration clause.” Keeton, 987 A.2d at 1119, 1121-22. | 4 | 4 |
Masurovsky v. Greengreen2 sentences2006If there is no dispute concerning the validity of the arbitration clause that is contained in the agreement or contract between the parties, “a presumption in favor of arbitration attaches.” Lopata, supra, 735 A.2d at 936 (citing Masurovsky v. Green, 687 A.2d 198, 204 (D.C.1996)) (other citation omitted). 2006Consequently, just as we recognized in Lopata , in signing its Agreement with BBGM, MCD “agreed to arbitrate” “[a]ny claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to [its] Agreement.” Id. at 936 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
green
2 sentences2013Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 444 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006). 2013Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 444 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lopata v. Coyne
green
2 sentences2006If there is no dispute concerning the validity of the arbitration clause that is contained in the agreement or contract between the parties, “a presumption in favor of arbitration attaches.” Lopata, supra, 735 A.2d at 936 (citing Masurovsky v. Green, 687 A.2d 198, 204 (D.C.1996)) (other citation omitted). 2006If there is no dispute concerning the validity of the arbitration clause that is contained in the agreement or contract between the parties, “a presumption in favor of arbitration attaches.” Lopata, supra, 735 A.2d at 936 (citing Masurovsky v. Green, 687 A.2d 198, 204 (D.C.1996)) (other citation omitted). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.