Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.
460 U.S. 1 (1983) Cited 12,151 times 49 Legal AnalysesHolding stay order appealable under § 1291 where it put the litigant "effectively out of court," and "surrender[ed] jurisdiction of a federal suit to a state court"
Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth
473 U.S. 614 (1985) Cited 4,301 times 44 Legal AnalysesHolding antitrust claims arbitrable because, even if they are arbitrated, antitrust law "will continue to serve both its remedial and deterrent function"
Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs.
489 U.S. 468 (1989) Cited 3,271 times 16 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including where the parties "specify by contract the rules under which arbitration will be conducted"
Steelworkers v. Warrior Gulf Co.
363 U.S. 574 (1960) Cited 5,602 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that grievance machinery “is at the very heart of the system of industrial self-government” and the courts should not deny an order to arbitrate “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute”
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.
24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000) Cited 1,807 times 46 Legal AnalysesHolding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable
KPMG LLP v. Cocchi
565 U.S. 18 (2011) Cited 231 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that the FAA has been “interpreted to require that if a dispute presents multiple claims, some arbitrable and some not, the former must be sent to arbitration even if this will lead to piecemeal litigation”
JSM Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Court (NMS Properties, Inc.)
B227360 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2011) Cited 111 timesFinding signatory litigant could be compelled to arbitrate claims against nonsignatory litigant "to extent that those claims [were] dependent upon, or inextricably intertwined with, the obligations imposed by the [underlying agreement]."
Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
204 Cal.App.4th 1425 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 100 timesHolding that a Texas choice of law provision could be sustained where defendant corporation had its principal place of business, corporate headquarters, and operating center in Dallas
Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc.
136 Cal.App.4th 1110 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 118 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that although the scope of an arbitration clause generally is a question for the court, parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to have the arbitrator determine the scope of the clause where the contract mandated arbitration in accordance with AAA Rules
Cooper v. Bruckner
21 A.D.3d 758 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) Cited 46 timesSeptember 8, 2005. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered May 12, 2004, which granted the petition to stay arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed. Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Sullivan and Catterson, JJ. This dispute arises out of certain agreements relating to a New York limited liability partnership in which respondent Bruckner was a non-equity partner and petitioner Cooper was a managing
Section 2 - Validity, irrevocability, and enforcement of agreements to arbitrate
9 U.S.C. § 2 Cited 11,223 times 120 Legal AnalysesGranting federal jurisdiction where there is "a transaction involving [interstate] commerce"
Section 7503 - Application to compel or stay arbitration; stay of action; notice of intention to arbitrate
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 7503 Cited 2,301 timesBarring parties from seeking a stay of arbitral proceedings where they "participated" in those proceedings
Section 8 - Proceedings begun by libel in admiralty and seizure of vessel or property
9 U.S.C. § 8 Cited 109 timesReferring to 5 U.S.C. § 372 380