Abstract
The Sixth Circuit and the district courts within the circuit have held that non-signatories to arbitration contracts may be compelled to arbitrate under the Federal Arbitration Act—even though they are not signatories to the arbitration contract. These courts reason that the non-signatories must arbitrate their claims because of an equitable estoppel theory. Although the Federal Arbitration Act displaces most state law regarding arbitration, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts must use state contract law to determine who is bound by an arbitration contract. This Note examines state contract law in the Sixth Circuit on equitable estoppel and concludes that the Sixth Circuit’s equitable estoppel theory is not based on state law.
Recommended Citation
Nicholas Oleski,
Arbitrating Estoppel: Equitable Estoppel in Arbitration Contracts,
64 Clev. St. L. Rev.
1027
(2016)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol64/iss4/8