Stuart L. Bell v. Cendant Corporation, American Arbitration Association

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that the inquiry whether \there is 'clear and unmistakable' evidence from the arbitration agreement\ is to be \construed by the relevant state law\
• finding that the question of whether the claims at issue fell under an agreement that contained a broad arbitration clause was “a question of scope” that had been delegated to the arbitrator (footnote omitted)
• distinguishing between a challenge to the existence of an agreement to arbitrate and a challenge to the scope of an arbitration provision
• finding that district court properly referred waiver issue to arbitrator because, “[a]lthough the Connecticut action and the arbitration both involve the same parties and were brought pursuant to the Adviser Agreement, they pertain to entirely different facts.”
• finding language requiring court “may, if it considers it proper, adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award” where “an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made” to the country which created the arbitral award
• “[t]here is a strong federal policy favoring arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).