found in cases where state statutes explicitly made certain arbitration clauses unen-foreeable or placed serious burdens on the enforceability of arbitration provisions. See, e.g., Doctor's Assocs., 517 U.S. at 688, 688, 116 S.Ct. 1652 (finding preemption where Montana law made arbitration clauses unenforceable unless the first page of the contract contained in underlined capital letters a statement that the contract was subject to arbitration); Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 518 U.S. 265, 269, 272-78, 282, 115 S.Ct. 834, 130 L.Ed.2d 758 (1995) (reversing Alabama Supreme Court's denial of arbitration based on a state statute rendering predispute arbitration agreements invalid and unenforceable); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 10-16, 104 S.Ct. 852, 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (<HOLDING>). But no such statute is involved here. Nor is
holding invalid on preemption grounds state statute making agreements to arbitrate franchise claims unenforceable holding that court should consider issues relating to making and performance of agreement to arbitrate holding that agreements to arbitrate are valid unless grounds exist at law or in equity for revocation including voidness under public policy holding on state constitutional grounds that school boards lack authority to arbitrate holding removal and preemption are distinct concepts erisa preemption does not allow removal unless complete preemption exists