(A) A provision in any written contract, except as provided in division (B) of this section, to settle by arbitration a controversy that subsequently arises out of the contract, or out of the refusal to perform the whole or any part of the contract, or any agreement in writing between two or more persons to submit to arbitration any controversy existing between them at the time of the agreement to submit, or arising after the agreement to submit, from a relationship then existing between them or that they simultaneously create, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except upon grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
(B)(1) Sections 2711.01 to 2711.16 of the Revised Code do not apply to controversies involving the title to or the possession of real estate, with the following exceptions:
(a) Controversies involving the amount of increased or decreased valuation of the property at the termination of certain periods, as provided in a lease;
(b) Controversies involving the amount of rentals due under any lease;
(c) Controversies involving the determination of the value of improvements at the termination of any lease;
(d) Controversies involving the appraisal of property values in connection with making or renewing any lease;
(e) Controversies involving the boundaries of real estate.
(2) Sections 2711.01 to 2711.16 of the Revised Code do not apply to controversies involving international commercial arbitration or conciliation that are subject to Chapter 2712. of the Revised Code.
Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 884 N.E.2d 12 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 5ד2d 574 , R.C. 2711.01, like its federal counterpart, “acknowledges that an arbitration clause is, in effect, a contract within a contract, subject to revocation on its own merits.”
Juhasz v. Costanzo, 761 N.E.2d 679 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 9דAppellant argues that the parties signed an agreement to arbitrate their dispute over appellees’ attorney fees, and that appellees’ attempts to withdraw from arbitration were not permitted under R.C. 2711.01. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed…”
Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 2009 Ohio 2054 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 4ד2711.02 provides for the enforcement of an arbitration agreement.”
Riggs v. Patriot Energy Partners, L.L.C., 2014 Ohio 558 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 18ד{¶3} Finally, although most of the Property Owners' claims are subject to arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.01, the trial court erred by submitting the quiet title claim to arbitration because it is a controversy involving title to or possession of real estate and does not fall…”
Blanchard Valley Health Sys. v. Canterbury Holdings, Inc., 2012 Ohio 5134 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 13דFurthermore, it found that dismissal of a claim subject to arbitration was not a remedy authorized by R.C. 2711.01 et seq. {¶10} The trial court granted the petition to compel arbitration and stayed all further proceedings, pending the disposition of the arbitrable claims.”
French v. Ascent Resources-Utica, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 869 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 13דR.C. 2711.01 {¶ 13} R.C. 2711.01(A) states, “A provision in any written contract, except as provided in division (B) of this section, to settle by arbitration a controversy that 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO subsequently arises out of the contract * * * shall be valid, irrevocable,…”
Villas Di Tuscany Condo. Assn., Inc. v. Villas Di Tuscany, 2014 Ohio 776 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10ד{¶8} Appellant raises six separate arguments, under a general heading, which we will construe as its assignment of error that states: DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ARBITRATION UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE §2711.01. {¶9} Generally, an abuse of discretion standard of review applies to…”
Tessler v. Ayer, 669 N.E.2d 891 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 7ד01(B)(1) states that R.C. 2711.01 to 2711.16 do not apply to controversies involving the title to or the possession of real estate.”
Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 467 N.E.2d 1378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2דR.C. 2711.01. 15 The record reveals that the arbitrator determined that appellant’s grievance must be denied in its entirety.”
Schaefer v. Allstate Ins., 590 N.E.2d 1242 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 3דSee former R.C. 2711.01. . See R.C. 2711.09. . Id. .”
Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, Local 697 v. Toledo Area Reg'l Transit Auth., 2020 Ohio 6655 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7ד{¶ 8} In its August 9, 2019 journalized judgment entry, the trial court stated it was “guided by the prevalent legal principle in Ohio that courts favor arbitration,” citing to four state court cases from Ohio, but none involved an expired CBA between a public employer and an…”
Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 809 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2דWhile it is conceivable that a complainant may allege that an arbitration clause itself may violate R.C.”
Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 884 N.E.2d 12 (Ohio 2008). “2d 574 , R.C. 2711.01, like its federal counterpart, “acknowledges that an arbitration clause is, in effect, a contract within a contract, subject to revocation on its own merits.”
Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 2009 Ohio 2054 (Ohio 2009). “2711.02 provides for the enforcement of an arbitration agreement.”
Villas Di Tuscany Condo. Assn., Inc. v. Villas Di Tuscany, 2014 Ohio 776 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶8} Appellant raises six separate arguments, under a general heading, which we will construe as its assignment of error that states: DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ARBITRATION UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE §2711.01. {¶9} Generally, an abuse of discretion standard of review applies to…”
Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, Local 697 v. Toledo Area Reg'l Transit Auth., 2020 Ohio 6655 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “{¶ 8} In its August 9, 2019 journalized judgment entry, the trial court stated it was “guided by the prevalent legal principle in Ohio that courts favor arbitration,” citing to four state court cases from Ohio, but none involved an expired CBA between a public employer and an…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2711.01(B) — 5 cases
Tessler v. Ayer, 669 N.E.2d 891 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “01(B)(1) states that R.C. 2711.01 to 2711.16 do not apply to controversies involving the title to or the possession of real estate.”
Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, Local 697 v. Toledo Area Reg'l Transit Auth., 2020 Ohio 6655 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “{¶ 8} In its August 9, 2019 journalized judgment entry, the trial court stated it was “guided by the prevalent legal principle in Ohio that courts favor arbitration,” citing to four state court cases from Ohio, but none involved an expired CBA between a public employer and an…”
Riggs v. Patriot Energy Partners, L.L.C., 2014 Ohio 558 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶3} Finally, although most of the Property Owners' claims are subject to arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.01, the trial court erred by submitting the quiet title claim to arbitration because it is a controversy involving title to or possession of real estate and does not fall…”
French v. Ascent Resources-Utica, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 869 (Ohio 2022). “R.C. 2711.01 {¶ 13} R.C. 2711.01(A) states, “A provision in any written contract, except as provided in division (B) of this section, to settle by arbitration a controversy that 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO subsequently arises out of the contract * * * shall be valid, irrevocable,…”
Blanchard Valley Health Sys. v. Canterbury Holdings, Inc., 2012 Ohio 5134 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Furthermore, it found that dismissal of a claim subject to arbitration was not a remedy authorized by R.C. 2711.01 et seq. {¶10} The trial court granted the petition to compel arbitration and stayed all further proceedings, pending the disposition of the arbitrable claims.”
Tessler v. Ayer, 669 N.E.2d 891 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “01(B)(1) states that R.C. 2711.01 to 2711.16 do not apply to controversies involving the title to or the possession of real estate.”
Riggs v. Patriot Energy Partners, L.L.C., 2014 Ohio 558 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶3} Finally, although most of the Property Owners' claims are subject to arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.01, the trial court erred by submitting the quiet title claim to arbitration because it is a controversy involving title to or possession of real estate and does not fall…”
Blanchard Valley Health Sys. v. Canterbury Holdings, Inc., 2012 Ohio 5134 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Furthermore, it found that dismissal of a claim subject to arbitration was not a remedy authorized by R.C. 2711.01 et seq. {¶10} The trial court granted the petition to compel arbitration and stayed all further proceedings, pending the disposition of the arbitrable claims.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.