5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perry v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2011See Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 , 107 S.Ct. 2520 , 96 L.Ed.2d 426 (1987); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 , 104 S.Ct. 852 , 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984).... [[Image here]] Although the states may not impose special limitations on the use of arbitration clauses, the validity of an arbitration clause is nevertheless an issue of state contract law. 2011See Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 , 107 S.Ct. 2520 , 96 L.Ed.2d 426 (1987); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 , 104 S.Ct. 852 , 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984).... [[Image here]] Although the states may not impose special limitations on the use of arbitration clauses, the validity of an arbitration clause is nevertheless an issue of state contract law. | 1 | 1 |
Stewart Agency, Inc. v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2005The trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Compel Arbitration. "[T]he standard of review applicable to the trial court's construction of [an] arbitration provision, and to its application of the law to the facts found, is de novo. " *244 Gainesville Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Weston, 857 So.2d 278, 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also Stewart Agency v. Robinson, 855 So.2d 726, 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)("A trial court's decision regarding the validity of an arbitration clause is a matter of contract interpretation subject to de novo review."). | 1 | 1 |
Gainesville Health Care Center, Inc. v. Westongreen1 sentence2005The trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Compel Arbitration. "[T]he standard of review applicable to the trial court's construction of [an] arbitration provision, and to its application of the law to the facts found, is de novo. " *244 Gainesville Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Weston, 857 So.2d 278, 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also Stewart Agency v. Robinson, 855 So.2d 726, 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)("A trial court's decision regarding the validity of an arbitration clause is a matter of contract interpretation subject to de novo review."). | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. King Motor Co. of South Floridagreen1 sentence2003See Chapman, 833 So.2d at 821 . | 1 | 1 |
Powertel, Inc. v. Bexleygreen1 sentence2001See Powertel, 743 So.2d at 574 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So.3d 456 (Fla. 2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Southland Corp. v. Keating
green
2 sentences2011See Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 , 107 S.Ct. 2520 , 96 L.Ed.2d 426 (1987); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 , 104 S.Ct. 852 , 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984).... [[Image here]] Although the states may not impose special limitations on the use of arbitration clauses, the validity of an arbitration clause is nevertheless an issue of state contract law. 2011See Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 , 107 S.Ct. 2520 , 96 L.Ed.2d 426 (1987); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 , 104 S.Ct. 852 , 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984).... [[Image here]] Although the states may not impose special limitations on the use of arbitration clauses, the validity of an arbitration clause is nevertheless an issue of state contract law. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.