Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth
473 U.S. 614 (1985) Cited 4,218 times 44 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Act emphatically favors arbitration
Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs.
489 U.S. 468 (1989) Cited 3,197 times 15 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including where the parties "specify by contract the rules under which arbitration will be conducted"
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Waffle House, Inc.
534 U.S. 279 (2002) Cited 1,481 times 15 Legal AnalysesHolding that a private arbitration agreement between an employee and an employer could not bind a nonparty governmental agency, the EEOC, and thus that the agreement—which was enforceable against the employee under the Federal Arbitration Act—did not limit the types of remedies the agency could seek in an enforcement action it initiated under Title VII
Pennzoil Expl. & Prod. Co. v. Ramco Energy Ltd.
139 F.3d 1061 (5th Cir. 1998) Cited 320 timesHolding when presented with a similar arbitration clause that “it is only necessary that the dispute ‘touch’ matters covered by the [agreement] to be arbitrable”
In re Merrill Lynch Trust
235 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2007) Cited 241 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that because claims against a Merrill Lynch broker "are in substance claims against Merrill Lynch, they must abide by their agreement to arbitrate those claims."
Pers. Sec. & Safety Sys. Inc. v. Motorola Inc.
297 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 166 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that an arbitration clause could be harmonized with a forum selection clause, which could be read to mean “that the parties must litigate in Texas courts only those disputes that are not subject to arbitration”
Neal v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc.
918 F.2d 34 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 197 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that two "individual agreements were integral and interrelated parts of one deal" where they referenced each other, were signed by the same parties, and were executed contemporaneously as part of one general transaction
Weingarten Realty Investors v. Miller
661 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 2011) Cited 99 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that such a stay is not mandatory
Richland Plantation Co. v. Justiss-Mears Oil
671 F.2d 154 (5th Cir. 1982) Cited 46 timesExplaining that when a contract is ambiguous, Texas courts will construe the agreement more strictly against the party who drafted it
C.B.S. Emp. Fed. Cr. U. v. Donaldson
716 F. Supp. 307 (W.D. Tenn. 1989) Cited 35 timesDeveloping test to determine whether district court should stay trial proceedings pending appeal from denial of motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration