30 Cited authorities

  1. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

    563 U.S. 333 (2011)   Cited 3,908 times   602 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a ban on collective-action waivers in those contracts worked to "disfavor arbitration"
  2. Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.

    460 U.S. 1 (1983)   Cited 12,150 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"
  3. AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am.

    475 U.S. 643 (1986)   Cited 5,474 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was for the court to decide whether a particular labor dispute fell within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement
  4. Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph

    531 U.S. 79 (2000)   Cited 2,446 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims under the Truth in Lending Act are arbitrable
  5. Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.

    570 U.S. 228 (2013)   Cited 675 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a class waiver in an arbitration agreement is enforceable under the FAA even when a plaintiff shows that the waiver will prevent her from vindicating her statutory rights
  6. Steelworkers v. Warrior Gulf Co.

    363 U.S. 574 (1960)   Cited 5,600 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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”
  7. 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett

    556 U.S. 247 (2009)   Cited 552 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a collective bargaining agreement that "clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate [Age Discrimination in Employment Act] claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law"
  8. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,806 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable
  9. Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Secs. Corp.

    14 Cal.4th 394 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 802 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding fraud in the inducement "occurs when the promisor knows what he is signing but his consent is induced by fraud"
  10. Communications Workers of America v. Beck

    487 U.S. 735 (1988)   Cited 277 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-members could not be charged "to support union activities beyond those germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment"
  11. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 18,266 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices
  12. Section 1 - "Maritime transactions" and "commerce" defined; exceptions to operation of title

    9 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 12,171 times   211 Legal Analyses
    Defining the word "commerce" in the language of the Commerce Clause itself
  13. Section 2 - Validity, irrevocability, and enforcement of agreements to arbitrate

    9 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 11,219 times   120 Legal Analyses
    Granting federal jurisdiction where there is "a transaction involving [interstate] commerce"
  14. Section 159 - Representatives and elections

    29 U.S.C. § 159   Cited 2,438 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Granting a bargaining unit the exclusive right to represent employees in it
  15. Section 201 - Computation and payment of wages upon discharge

    Cal. Lab. Code § 201   Cited 1,812 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Providing that, "[i]f an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately"
  16. Section 1281.2 - Grounds for not ordering parties to arbitrate controversy

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2   Cited 1,458 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Stating that an order compelling arbitration “may not be refused on the ground that the petitioner's contentions lack substantive merit”