Hill v. G E Power Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that, when deciding whether to apply the Grigson equitable estoppel doctrine, A the district court is better equipped to make the call than this court, and we do not lightly override that discretion. @
• stating that Grigson holds that “equitable estoppel applies when the signatory to a written agreement containing an arbitration clause must rely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting its claims against the nonsignatory ”
• permitting suit to go forward would undermine the arbitration proceeding and thus thwart federal policy
• outlining the limited circumstances under which a nonsignatory can invoke an arbitration agreement
• plaintiff signatory alleged non‑signatory and defendant signatory A worked in tandem @ to misappropriate trade secrets and fraudulently induce plaintiff to contract with them
• staying non-signatory’s claims when signatory’s claims were compelled to arbitration

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).