Dispute Resolution, Arbitration & Mediation: Supreme Court Decisions
Sponsored Links
- Allied Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson 513 U.S. 265 (1995) (Section 2 of the Federal Arbigration Act's interstate commerce language should be read broadly to extend the Act's reach to the limits of Congress' Commerce Clause power. The use of the words "evidencing" and "involving" does not restrict the Act's application and thereby allow a State to apply its anti-arbitration law or policy.
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (Section 1 of the FAA, which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce", is confined to transportation workers and does not exempt all employment contracts from the FAA's reach as was held below.)
- Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co. 393 U.S. 145 (1968) (Arbitrators should disclose to the parties any dealings which might create an impression of possible bias.)
- Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto 517 U.S. 681 (1996) (Montana's first page notice requirement, which governs not "any contract," but specifically and solely contracts "subject to arbitration," conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act and is therefore displaced by the federal measure.)
- EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the EEOC from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an ADA enforcement action.)
- First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (A court must defer to an arbitrator's arbitrability decision when the parties submitted that matter to arbitration. Courts of appeals should apply ordinary, not special, standards when reviewing district court decisions upholding arbitration awards.)
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. 500 U.S. 20 (1991) (An ADEA claim can be subjected to compulsory arbitration.)
- Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (Where a district court has ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration, and dismissed all the claims before it, the decision is “final” under Federal Arbitration Act section 16(a)(3), and therefore appealable. )
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (American courts should enforce an agreement to resolve antitrust claims by arbitration when the agreement arose from an international transaction.)
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. 388 U.S. 395 (1967) (In passing upon an application for a stay of arbitration under section 3 of the Arbitration Act, a federal court may not consider a claim of fraud in the inducement of the contract generally, but "may consider only the issues relating to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate.")
- Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. 490 U.S. 477 (1989) (A predispute agreement to arbitrate claims under the Securities Act of 1933 is enforceable, and resolution of the claims only in a judicial forum is not required.)
- Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon 482 U.S. 220 (1987) (The Federal Arbitration Act establishes a federal policy favoring arbitration, requiring that the courts rigorously enforce arbitration agreements. This duty is not diminished when a party bound by an agreement raises a claim founded on statutory rights. The Act's mandate may be overridden by a contrary congressional command, but the burden is on the party opposing arbitration to show that Congress intended to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue.)
- Volt Info. Sciences v. Stanford Univ. 489 U.S. 468 (1989) (The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) doesn’t preempt state laws regarding arbitration procedures so long as they do not contravene the purpose of the FAA)
- Wilco v. Swan 346 U.S. 427 (1953) (Established the "manifest disregard of the law" standard for vacatur of arbitral awards).
Ads by FindLaw