Teague v. Teague

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a sufficiently close relationship “has been found where the non-signatory is a parent company, corporate successor, guarantor, or corporate affiliate of a signatory”
• citing, inter alia, Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 630–31 (2009)
• “parent company, corporate successor, guarantor, or corporate affiliate of the signatory” may invoke arbitration agreement
• agreement delegates arbitrability question to arbitrator when it “permit[s] the party initiating arbitration to choose between the rules of the AAA and the rules of the [NAF]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).