37 Cited authorities

  1. Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.

    460 U.S. 1 (1983)   Cited 10,262 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance did not overrule the “Colorado River test” because Will 's four dissenting Justices agreed with the concurring opinion that the test remained in effect
  2. First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan

    514 U.S. 938 (1995)   Cited 4,355 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a circuit court reviewing a district court's disposition of an arbitration award should apply "ordinary, not special, standards."
  3. Rent-A-Ctr. v. Jackson

    561 U.S. 63 (2010)   Cited 1,821 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract," even where the contract containing the arbitration provision is itself an arbitration agreement (quoting Buckeye , 546 U.S. at 445, 126 S.Ct. 1204 )
  4. Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph

    531 U.S. 79 (2000)   Cited 2,010 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims under the Truth in Lending Act are arbitrable
  5. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.

    139 S. Ct. 524 (2019)   Cited 477 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts cannot decide arbitrability issues that the parties agreed to submit to arbitration even if "the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless"
  6. Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.

    175 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 492 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disputes “need only touch matters covered by the contract containing the arbitration clause and all doubts are to be resolved in favor of arbitrability”
  7. Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.

    763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 247 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even "where a website makes its terms of use available via a conspicuous hyperlink on every page of the website but otherwise provides no notice to users nor prompts them to take any affirmative action to demonstrate assent, even close proximity of the hyperlink to relevant buttons users must click on—without more—is insufficient to give rise to constructive notice."
  8. Brennan v. Opus Bank, Corp.

    796 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015)   Cited 236 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "incorporation of the AAA rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence" of agreement to delegate arbitrability
  9. Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc.

    868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017)   Cited 170 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding use of linked Terms of Service containing an arbitration clause was not procedurally unconscionable and recognizing that "clarity and conspicuousness are a function of the design and content of the relevant interface"
  10. Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist v. E. F. Hutton

    925 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991)   Cited 313 times
    Holding that only a court can decide the threshold issue of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate
  11. Section 1 - "Maritime transactions" and "commerce" defined; exceptions to operation of title

    9 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 10,090 times   174 Legal Analyses
    Defining the word "commerce" in the language of the Commerce Clause itself
  12. Section 2 - Validity, irrevocability, and enforcement of agreements to arbitrate

    9 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 8,862 times   107 Legal Analyses
    Granting federal jurisdiction where there is "a transaction involving [interstate] commerce"
  13. Section 3 - Stay of proceedings where issue therein referable to arbitration

    9 U.S.C. § 3   Cited 5,728 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Referring to proceedings "brought in any of the courts of the United States"
  14. Section 4 - Failure to arbitrate under agreement; petition to United States court having jurisdiction for order to compel arbitration; notice and service thereof; hearing and determination

    9 U.S.C. § 4   Cited 4,857 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to federal courts to compel party to participate in arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement exists
  15. Section 6710

    Cal. Fam. Code § 6710   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting minors to disaffirm most contracts