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.
20 canonical passages across 14 cases, quoted by 3,616 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. Anchor | red | “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” | 801 |
| 2 | First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan | green | “ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts.” | 615 |
| 3 | Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd | green | “leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.” | 518 |
| 4 | First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan | green | “courts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is 'clear and unmistakable' evidence that they did so.” | 313 |
| 5 | At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers | green | “unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator.” | 287 |
| 6 | United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. | green | “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” | 244 |
| 7 | First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan | green | “arbitration is simply a matter of contract between the parties; it is a way to resolve those disputes-but only those disputes-that the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration.” | 160 |
| 8 | At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers | green | “in deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular grievance to arbitration, a court is not to rule on the potential merits of the underlying claims.” | 154 |
| 9 | Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. | green | “the first task of a court asked to compel arbitration of a dispute is to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate that dispute.” | 126 |
| 10 | Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. | green | “as with any other contract, the parties' intentions control, but those intentions are generously construed as to issues of arbitrability.” | 105 |
| 11 | Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. | green | “any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement” | 88 |
| 12 | At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers | green | “arbitrators derive their authority to resolve disputes only because the parties have agreed in advance to submit such grievances to arbitration.” | 81 |
| 13 | Par-Knit Mills, Inc. v. Stockbridge Fabrics Company, Ltd. | red | “the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences that may arise.” | 25 |
| 14 | Ted Kubala, Jr. v. Supreme Production Svc, Inc. | green | “contains a delegation clause giving the arbitrator the primary power to rule on the arbitrability of a specific claim, the analysis changes.” | 24 |
| 15 | Erik Knutson v. Sirius Xm Radio Inc. | green | “the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence.” | 22 |
| 16 | Par-Knit Mills, Inc. v. Stockbridge Fabrics Company, Ltd. | red | “only when there is no genuine issue of fact concerning the formation of the agreement should the court decide as a matter of law that the parties did or did not enter into such an agreement.” | 21 |
| 17 | Kevin Comer v. Micor, Inc. Kenneth C. Smith Elliot H. Wagner Barbara Arbucci, and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. | green | “liberal federal policy regarding the scope of arbitrable issues is inapposite” | 15 |
| 18 | National Auto Lenders, Inc. v. Syslocate, Inc. | green | “the court must grant a motion to compel arbitration if it is satisfied that the parties agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue.” | 9 |
| 19 | Aluminum Company of America v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and Uaw Local 808 | green | “a case is most clearly arbitrable ... when the union alleges a concrete violation of the agreement and interpretation or application of the agreement is required to resolve the dispute.” | 4 |
| 20 | Westinghouse Hanford Company v. Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council | green | “where there are no express exclusions from arbitration, we have limited our inquiry to the arbitration clause itself and refused to consider substantive provisions” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.