Warrington v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that courts must decide “certain gateway matters, such as whether the parties have a valid arbitration agreement at all or whether a concededly binding arbitration clause applies to a certain type of controversy”
• holding whether arbitration could proceed by class action was question for arbitrator
• holding question of whether an arbitration agreement forbade class arbitration was for the arbitrator, not the court, because it involved contract interpretation and arbitration procedures
• noting that when a contract contains such “sweeping language concerning the scope of the questions committed to arbitration, ... matter[s] of contract interpretation should be for the arbitrator, not the courts, to decide”
• noting that when a contract contains such “sweeping language concerning the scope of the questions committed to arbitration, . . . matter[s] of contract interpretation should be for the arbitrator, not the courts, to decide”
• holding whether arbitration could proceed by class action was question for arbitrator

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).