Legal Opinion
Citigroup Smith Barney v. Henderson
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided February 23, 2011No. CV07120045; A139707PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWollheim, J.
This is an interlocutory appeal of an order denying plaintiffs motion to compel arbitration. The trial court concluded that defendants’ counterclaims were not subject to mandatory arbitration. We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in denying the motion, and we therefore reverse and remand.
The relevant facts are not disputed. Lyle Henderson opened an individual retirement account (IRA) with plaintiff, Citigroup Smith Barney. At the same time, Henderson entered into an IRA agreement with plaintiff that required arbitration of all claims and controversies between them:
“I agree that all…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. DobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gozzi v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
- Delashmutt v. Parker Group Investments, LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
- Cornelio v. Premere Rehab, LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
- Eugene Water & Elec. Bd. v. MWH Ams., Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
- Black Tail Dev., LLC v. Or. TV, LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.