25 Cited authorities

AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am.
475 U.S. 643 (1986) Cited 5,358 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was for the court to decide whether a particular labor dispute fell within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement
Steelworkers v. Warrior Gulf Co.
363 U.S. 574 (1960) Cited 5,542 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that grievance machinery “is at the very heart of the system of industrial self-government” and the courts should not deny an order to arbitrate “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute”
Morris v. Dept. of Taxation
82 N.Y.2d 135 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 1,417 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury."
Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n
64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 824 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that although the unwilling party received a benefit, the benefit did not derive directly from the agreement containing the arbitration clause and thus arbitration could not be compelled
Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Govt. of Turkmenistan
345 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2003) Cited 443 times
Holding that “[t]he Plaintiff cannot, on the one hand, seek to hold the nonsignatory liable pursuant to duties imposed by the agreement, which contains an arbitration provision, but, on the other hand, deny arbitration's applicability because the defendant is a nonsignatory
TNS Holdings, Inc. v. MKI Sec. Corp.
92 N.Y.2d 335 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 486 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "interrelatedness, standing alone, is not enough to subject a nonsignatory to arbitration"
Intergen N.V. v. Grina
344 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2003) Cited 331 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a party moving to compel arbitration must show that the other party is bound by the arbitration clause at issue
Bel-Ray Company v. Chemrite
181 F.3d 435 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 366 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants waived their personal jurisdiction defense, though previously raised in their answer, by filing a motion for summary judgment that sought "affirmative relief" on their counterclaim
MAG Portfolio Consult, GMBH v. Merlin Biomed Grp. LLC
268 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 334 times
Holding this theory applies only when a nonsignatory "knowingly exploited purchase contract and thereby received a direct benefit from the contract"
Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. P'ship, Inc. v. Smith Cogeneration Int'l, Inc.
198 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 339 times
Holding that the fact that the party resisting arbitration could not rely for that purpose on the separate corporate existence of a number of Enron affiliates that it had referred to collectively in a prior complaint as the "Enron Group"

In the Matter of Samuel Belzberg, Appellant, Doris Lindbergh, et al., Petitioners,v.Verus Investments Holdings Inc., Respondent.

25 Cited authorities

Holding that it was for the court to decide whether a particular labor dispute fell within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement

Holding that "piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury."

Holding that although the unwilling party received a benefit, the benefit did not derive directly from the agreement containing the arbitration clause and thus arbitration could not be compelled

Holding that “[t]he Plaintiff cannot, on the one hand, seek to hold the nonsignatory liable pursuant to duties imposed by the agreement, which contains an arbitration provision, but, on the other hand, deny arbitration's applicability because the defendant is a nonsignatory

Holding that "interrelatedness, standing alone, is not enough to subject a nonsignatory to arbitration"

Holding a party moving to compel arbitration must show that the other party is bound by the arbitration clause at issue

Holding that defendants waived their personal jurisdiction defense, though previously raised in their answer, by filing a motion for summary judgment that sought "affirmative relief" on their counterclaim

Holding this theory applies only when a nonsignatory "knowingly exploited purchase contract and thereby received a direct benefit from the contract"

Holding that the fact that the party resisting arbitration could not rely for that purpose on the separate corporate existence of a number of Enron affiliates that it had referred to collectively in a prior complaint as the "Enron Group"