Schumacher Homes of Circleville v. John and Carolyn Spencer
West Virginia Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Justice KETCHUM:
In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has doled out several complicated decisions construing the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16. Read together, these decisions create an eye-glazing conceptual framework for interpreting contracts with arbitration clauses that is politely described as “a tad oversubtle'for sensible application.”1 The Supreme Court sees its arbitration decisions as a series of “clear instruetion[s].” Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1201, 1203, 182 L.Ed.2d 42 (2012). But experience suggests that the rules derived…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Richard Parsons v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2016
- Chesapeake Appalachia v. Cecil L. HIckman, etc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2015
- Schumacher Homes of Circleville v. John and Carolyn SpencerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2016
- Geological Assessment & Leasing v. Michael C. and Dierdre J. O'Hara, etc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2015
- Richard Parsons v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.