Roe v. Ladymon

318 S.W.3d 502 | Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) | 2010

affirmedCited 85 timesBATTLE_TESTEDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

Courts, not arbitrators, have primary responsibility to decide whether a non-signatory is bound by an arbitration agreement unless parties clearly and unmistakably agreed otherwise.

Courts have primary power to decide arbitrability of non-signatories absent clear agreement.

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas), 2010

Related Cases

Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.

2013reversed

Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy

2002voided

Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.

Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

2004enforced

A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.

General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.

2001voided

The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.

Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase

1992enforced

An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.

Rory v. Continental Insurance

2005enforced

Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.