(A) As used in this section and section 2711.03 of the Revised Code, "commercial construction contract" means any written contract or agreement for the construction of any improvement to real property, other than an improvement that is used or intended to be used as a single-family, two-family, or three-family detached dwelling house and accessory structures incidental to that use.
(B) If any action is brought upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration, the court in which the action is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in the action is referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until the arbitration of the issue has been had in accordance with the agreement, provided the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with arbitration.
(C) Except as provided in division (D) of this section, an order under division (B) of this section that grants or denies a stay of a trial of any action pending arbitration, including, but not limited to, an order that is based upon a determination of the court that a party has waived arbitration under the arbitration agreement, is a final order and may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed on appeal pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and, to the extent not in conflict with those rules, Chapter 2505. of the Revised Code.
(D) If an action is brought under division (B) of this section upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration that is included in a commercial construction contract, an order under that division that denies a stay of a trial of the action pending arbitration, including, but not limited to, an order that is based upon a determination of the court that a party has waived arbitration under the arbitration agreement, is a final order and may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed on appeal pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and, to the extent not in conflict with those rules, Chapter 2505. of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 356
cases (88 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Maestle v. Best Buy Co., 2003-Ohio-6465, 800 N.E.2d 7.
Maestle v. Best Buy Co., 2003-Ohio-6465, 800 N.E.2d 7. · cites it 29דThis motion was based on both R.C. 2711.02 and Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (Section 3, Title 9, U.”
Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 884 N.E.2d 12 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 12דThus, in ABM Farms , we held that to defeat a motion under R.C. 2711.02 for a stay of litigation in favor of arbitration, “a party must demonstrate that the arbitration provision itself in the contract at issue, and not merely the contract in general, was fraudulently induced.”
Mynes v. Brooks, 2009-Ohio-5946, 918 N.E.2d 511. · cites it 18ד” For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the Fourth District Court of Appeals. An order granting or denying a stay of trial pending arbitration issued under R.”
Juhasz v. Costanzo, 761 N.E.2d 679 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2001). · cites it 16דAppellant reasoned that under R.C. 2711.02, the trial court was required to stay the proceedings in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas until the arbitration proceedings had concluded.”
Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 2009-Ohio-2054, 908 N.E.2d 408. · cites it 6דOakridge moved to stay the proceedings pursuant to R.C. 2711.02 on the grounds that Hayes’s allegations 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO were covered by the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties.”
Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 809 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2004). · cites it 6ד03, and indirect enforcement of such agreements pursuant to an order staying trial court proceedings under R.C. 2711.02. Maestle v. Best Buy Co., 100 Ohio St.”
Ohio Plumbing, Ltd. v. Fiorilli Constr., Inc., 2018-Ohio-1748, 111 N.E.3d 763. · cites it 11ד12(B) and R.C. 2711.02. Fiorilli claimed that venue was improper in Cuyahoga County because the agreement included a forum selection provision that stated that any litigation relating to the contract would be filed in Medina County, Ohio.”
Brownlee v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 2012-Ohio-2212. · cites it 10ד{¶4} Relying on the above arbitration provision contained in the parties’ Settlement Agreement, CCF filed a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.02. Brownlee opposed the motion, arguing that enforcing the arbitration clause “violates the…”
Cross v. Carnes, 724 N.E.2d 828 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1998). · cites it 10דOn June 13, 1996, appellees moved the court pursuant to R.C. 2711.02 to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, asserting that the parties had a prior written agreement to arbitrate the claims.”
Orcutt v. Kettering Radiologists, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 2d 746 (S.D. Ohio 2002). · cites it 10דKMC further asserts that Ohio Rev.Code § 2711.02 requires a stay of this action, pending arbitration.”
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Allen, 2016-Ohio-2766, 52 N.E.3d 1237. · cites it 11ד{¶18} At the outset, we note it has been held that the right to arbitrate, as protected by R.C. 2711.02, is not a Civ.R. 8(C) affirmative defense and, a party’s failure to include it in the initial responsive pleading does not result in waiver.”
McGuffey v. Lenscrafters, Inc., 749 N.E.2d 825 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 2001). · cites it 8ד02 provides that a court “shall” stay proceedings pending arbitration “upon being satisfied that the issue involved in the action is referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration^]” This statute inherently presumes that the trial court will examine a…”
Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 884 N.E.2d 12 (Ohio 2008). “Thus, in ABM Farms , we held that to defeat a motion under R.C. 2711.02 for a stay of litigation in favor of arbitration, “a party must demonstrate that the arbitration provision itself in the contract at issue, and not merely the contract in general, was fraudulently induced.”
Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 884 N.E.2d 12 (Ohio 2008). “Thus, in ABM Farms , we held that to defeat a motion under R.C. 2711.02 for a stay of litigation in favor of arbitration, “a party must demonstrate that the arbitration provision itself in the contract at issue, and not merely the contract in general, was fraudulently induced.”
Ohio Plumbing, Ltd. v. Fiorilli Constr., Inc., 2018-Ohio-1748, 111 N.E.3d 763. “12(B) and R.C. 2711.02. Fiorilli claimed that venue was improper in Cuyahoga County because the agreement included a forum selection provision that stated that any litigation relating to the contract would be filed in Medina County, Ohio.”
Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 2009-Ohio-2054, 908 N.E.2d 408. “Oakridge moved to stay the proceedings pursuant to R.C. 2711.02 on the grounds that Hayes’s allegations 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO were covered by the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties.”
Mynes v. Brooks, 2009-Ohio-5946, 918 N.E.2d 511. “” For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the Fourth District Court of Appeals. An order granting or denying a stay of trial pending arbitration issued under R.”
Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 884 N.E.2d 12 (Ohio 2008). “Thus, in ABM Farms , we held that to defeat a motion under R.C. 2711.02 for a stay of litigation in favor of arbitration, “a party must demonstrate that the arbitration provision itself in the contract at issue, and not merely the contract in general, was fraudulently induced.”
Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 884 N.E.2d 12 (Ohio 2008). “Thus, in ABM Farms , we held that to defeat a motion under R.C. 2711.02 for a stay of litigation in favor of arbitration, “a party must demonstrate that the arbitration provision itself in the contract at issue, and not merely the contract in general, was fraudulently induced.”
Ohio Plumbing, Ltd. v. Fiorilli Constr., Inc., 2018-Ohio-1748, 111 N.E.3d 763. “12(B) and R.C. 2711.02. Fiorilli claimed that venue was improper in Cuyahoga County because the agreement included a forum selection provision that stated that any litigation relating to the contract would be filed in Medina County, Ohio.”
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.