Paradis v. Zarella, 92-1422 (1996)

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability when they incorporated Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services rules into their agreement
• holding that incorporation of a substantively identical rule showed that the parties “clearly and unmistakably intended for an arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability”
• holding that incorporation of JAMS rules into clause showed clear and unmistakable intent to have arbitrator decide arbitrability issues
• holding that where there is a valid agreement to arbitrate that delegates arbitrability issues to an arbitrator, a district court must grant a motion to compel arbitration
• determining that \a majority of our sister circuits” reject any variant of the \arguably covered” approach
• finding that the parties had clearly delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the JAMs rules into their contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).