782 So. 2d 277 - Ex Parte Meadows’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has stated: "`The Federal Arbitration Act governs the question of who must decide issues of arbitrability. Under the Act, a district court must compel arbitration if the parties have agreed to arbitrate their dispute. 9 U.S.C. § 2 , 3 (1988). However, if the validity of the agreement to arbitrate is in issue, a district court, not a panel of arbitrators, must decide if the arbitration clause is enforceable against the parties. Simply put, parties cannot be forced to submit to arbitration if they have not agreed to do so. Thus, "the first task of a court asked to compel arbitration is to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate that dispute."' " Chastain v. Robinson-Humphrey Co ., 957 F.2d 851 , 853-54 (11th Cir. 1992). (Citations omitted.) "The Eleventh Circuit has also adopted the following rule: "`"To make a genuine issue entitling the [party seeking to avoid arbitration] to a trial by jury [on the arbitrability question], an unequivocal denial that the agreement had been made [is] needed, and some evidence should [be] produced to substantiate the denial."' " Id . at 854 (quoting T R Enters. v. Continental Grain Co ., 613 F.2d 1272 , 1278 (5th Cir. 1980)). This Court has held that `"because an `arbitrator's jurisdiction is rooted in the agreement of the parties,' a party who contests the making of a contract containing an arbitration provision cannot be compelled to arbitrate the threshold issue of the ex”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ssc Selma Operating Company v. Gordon · 827 So. 2d 85 - Ex Parte Majors

2. “"Meadows unequivocally denied signing the February 7, 1996, document that purports to bear his signature; thus, in effect, he denies the existence of a February 7, 1996, contract. He cannot be compelled to arbitrate the issue whether he entered into a contract in February 1996. Meadows provided substantial evidence to support his contention that he did not sign the document. He testified under oath that he did not sign the document, and he presented testimony from an expert, Dr. Roper, who corroborated Meadows's testimony that he did not sign the document. Meadows was entitled to have a jury determine whether he signed the February 7, 1996, document that contained the arbitration provision . "We grant the petition and issue the writ of mandamus. The circuit judge is directed to conduct a trial by jury only *Page 1083 on the issue whether Meadows signed the document dated February 7, 1996 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 794 So. 2d 1078 - Premiere Automotive Group, Inc. v. Welch

3. “' Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Barger , 773 So.2d 454 , 460 (quoting Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton Co ., 925 F.2d 1136 , 1140 (9th Cir. 1991)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 827 So. 2d 85 - Ex Parte Majors