§Why CasetextPricing

Rita Cusimano,, et al., Respondents,v.Andrew V. Schnurr, CPA, et al., Appellants. Bernard V. Strianese, et al., Intervenors-Appellants.

Brief

84 Cited authorities

  1. Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.

    460 U.S. 1 (1983)   Cited 11,913 times   47 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"

  2. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Waffle House, Inc.

    534 U.S. 279 (2002)   Cited 1,488 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private arbitration agreement between an employee and an employer could not bind a nonparty governmental agency, the EEOC, and thus that the agreement—which was enforceable against the employee under the Federal Arbitration Act—did not limit the types of remedies the agency could seek in an enforcement action it initiated under Title VII

  3. Gonzales v. Raich

    545 U.S. 1 (2005)   Cited 1,145 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because “Congress had a rational basis” for concluding that a statute implements Commerce Clause power, the statute falls within the scope of congressional “authority to ‘make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper’ to ‘regulate Commerce ... among the several States' ”

  4. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson

    513 U.S. 265 (1995)   Cited 1,603 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that term "involving commerce" reflects "an intent to exercise Congress' commerce power to the full"

  5. Perry v. Thomas

    482 U.S. 483 (1987)   Cited 1,331 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FAA preempted a state statute permitting litigation of wage collection actions despite the existence of a private agreement to arbitrate

  6. Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc.

    539 U.S. 52 (2003)   Cited 491 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the FAA applies to all transactions "affecting commerce-words of art that ordinarily signal the broadest permissible exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power"

  7. Kaufman v. Cohen

    307 A.D.2d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 1,166 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that misrepresentations by one business partner to other partners about the value of a business interest was "essential" to completing the underlying misappropriation of a business opportunity

  8. IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2262 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 846 times
    Holding that unjust enrichment "is an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties concerned. Where the parties executed a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter, recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment for events arising out of that subject matter is ordinarily precluded."

  9. Contec Corp. v. Remote Sol. Co.

    398 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 474 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the adoption of arbitration rules empowering arbitrator to "rule on his or her own jurisdiction" constituted clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties' intent to delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator

  10. Russell v. United States

    471 U.S. 858 (1985)   Cited 223 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an apartment building being rented to tenants was "unquestionably" being used in an activity affecting interstate commerce

  11. Section 2 - Validity, irrevocability, and enforcement of agreements to arbitrate

    9 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 10,883 times   117 Legal Analyses
    Granting federal jurisdiction where there is "a transaction involving [interstate] commerce"