Arbitration clauses require parties to resolve disputes through binding arbitration rather than litigation. Texas courts generally enforce arbitration agreements in construction contracts.
The cases below are organized by outcome and significance. Flagship cases represent the most-cited opinions that have shaped how arbitration clauses are interpreted in Texas courts.
A signatory to an arbitration agreement cannot be compelled to arbitrate claims against non-signatories unless clear and unmistakable evidence shows the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability with non-parties; mere incorporation of AAA rules does not suffice for non-signatory disputes.
District courts have subject matter jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act to grant preliminary injunctions preserving the status quo pending arbitration when traditional prerequisites are satisfied, particularly where denial would render arbitration meaningless.
When parties incorporate JAMS rules into an arbitration agreement, they evidence clear and unmistakable intent to delegate arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, requiring compulsion of all claims to arbitration.
6 opinions sorted by most cited
| CASE | CITATION | OUTCOME | CITES |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jody James Farms, Jv v. the Altman Group, Inc. and Laurie Diaz Texas Supreme Court | 547 S.W.3d 624 (2018) | remanded | 185 |
| Performance Unlimited, Inc. v. Questar Publishers, Inc. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | 52 F.3d 1373 (1995) | remanded | 183 |
| Belnap v. Iasis Healthcare Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | 844 F.3d 1272 (2017) | remanded | 161 |
| Wells v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. Court of Appeals of Maryland | 768 A.2d 620 (2001) | voided | 115 |
| Kittay v. Landegger (In Re Hagerstown Fiber Ltd. Partnership) United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York | 277 B.R. 181 (2002) | modified | 33 |
| Bigge Crane & Rigging Co. v. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Supreme Court of Arkansas | 2015 Ark. 58 (2015) | enforced | 13 |