Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Craig Crockett

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 courts should decide the question and suggesting that the Supreme Court was close to completing its “puzzle” on the issue
• recognizing that Bazzle contained no precedential rulings, and holding that based on Stolt-Nielsen, class arbitration was a gateway issue for the court
• concluding that an arbitration clause covering “any controversy, claim, or counterclaim” did not authorize classwide arbitration
• concluding that a clause which incorporated the AAA Rules “does not clearly and unmistakably assign to an arbitrator the question whether the agreement permits classwide arbitration”
• holding an arbitration provision invoking AAA rules and sending any controversy, claim, or counterclaim “arising out of or in connection with [the customer’s] order” does not sufficiently indicate the parties agreed to send class arbitrability to the arbitrator
• finding that secondary reason for concluding that the arbitration agreement does not authorize classwide arbitration stemmed from the fact that the clause limits its scope to claims “arising from or in connection with this Order,” as opposed to other customers’ orders.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).