Bishop v. Gosiger, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because “Bishop’s claims arguably fall within the contemplated scope” of the contract containing the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator had the authority to decide whether the arbitration agreement covered the claims at issue (emphasis added)
• collecting cases holding that contracts requiring arbitration under AAA rules vest arbitrators with the authority to decide arbitrability
• “It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in a most skeletal way, leaving the court to put flesh on its bones.”
• “It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in a most skeletal way, leaving the court to put flesh on its bones.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
• “It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in a most skeletal way, leaving the court to put flesh on its bones.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
• “It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in a most skeletal way, leaving the court to put flesh on its bones.” (quoting Meridia Prods. Liab. Litig. v. Abbott Lab’ys, 447 F.3d 861, 868 (6th Cir. 2006))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).