32 Cited authorities

Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
537 U.S. 79 (2002) Cited 2,505 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that compliance with a time-limit on the initiation of arbitration was not a gateway "question of arbitrability" that was reserved for the courts as it was procedural rather than substantive
Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
514 U.S. 52 (1995) Cited 1,239 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should be guided by the “cardinal principle of contract construction: that a document should be read to give effect to all of its provisions and to render them consistent with each other”
Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle
539 U.S. 444 (2003) Cited 676 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that "gateway matters," such as the scope of an arbitration provision, should be determined by courts and not arbitrators
Painewebber Inc. v. Bybyk
81 F.3d 1193 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 466 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a provision requiring arbitration of "any and all controversies" indicates the parties' intent to submit to arbitration the very question of arbitrability
Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Wagoner
944 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 449 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding there was no waiver even though defendant did not raise arbitration after knowing about his rights for three years
Shaw Grp. Inc. v. Triplefine Int'l Corp.
322 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 302 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an arbitration clause subjecting disputes to ICC rules constituted clear and unmistakable evidence of parties' intent to delegate arbitrability issues to arbitrator
Smith Barney v. Sacharow
91 N.Y.2d 39 (N.Y. 1997) Cited 292 times
Holding that an agreement governed by New York law that states that “[a]ny controversy ... shall be settled by arbitration” clearly and unmistakably reserves the decision of arbitrability for the arbitrator
U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co.
241 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 184 times
Holding that district court findings were subject to clear error review where parties did not seek evidentiary hearing and "filed multiple briefs and extensive evidence with the court over a two-year period"
Matter of Smith Barney v. Luckie
85 N.Y.2d 193 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 203 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where choice of law clause provided that New York state law "would govern 'the agreement and its enforcement'" statute of limitations issue was for the court
Diamond Sys. v. 55 Liberty
4 N.Y.3d 247 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 123 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the FAA applied since the out-of-state parties were involved in the transaction and various materials were obtained from out-of-state
Section 1 - "Maritime transactions" and "commerce" defined; exceptions to operation of title
9 U.S.C. § 1 Cited 11,829 times 204 Legal Analyses
Defining the word "commerce" in the language of the Commerce Clause itself
Section 7503 - Application to compel or stay arbitration; stay of action; notice of intention to arbitrate
N.Y. CPLR 7503 Cited 2,250 times
Barring parties from seeking a stay of arbitral proceedings where they "participated" in those proceedings
Section 7502 - Applications to the court; venue; statutes of limitation; provisional remedies
N.Y. CPLR 7502 Cited 639 times 2 Legal Analyses
Providing that proceedings affecting arbitration may “be brought in the county where at least one of the parties resides or is doing business or where the arbitration was held or is pending”
Section 202 - Cause of action accruing without the state
N.Y. CPLR 202 Cited 578 times
Limiting the limitations period for causes of action accruing outside of New York where the foreign jurisdiction imposes a shorter statute of limitations than the state does

Bechtel Do Brasil Constucoes Ltda. et al v. Ueg Araucaria Ltda.

32 Cited authorities

Holding that compliance with a time-limit on the initiation of arbitration was not a gateway "question of arbitrability" that was reserved for the courts as it was procedural rather than substantive

Holding that courts should be guided by the “cardinal principle of contract construction: that a document should be read to give effect to all of its provisions and to render them consistent with each other”

Holding that "gateway matters," such as the scope of an arbitration provision, should be determined by courts and not arbitrators

Holding that a provision requiring arbitration of "any and all controversies" indicates the parties' intent to submit to arbitration the very question of arbitrability

Holding there was no waiver even though defendant did not raise arbitration after knowing about his rights for three years

Holding that an arbitration clause subjecting disputes to ICC rules constituted clear and unmistakable evidence of parties' intent to delegate arbitrability issues to arbitrator

Holding that an agreement governed by New York law that states that “[a]ny controversy ... shall be settled by arbitration” clearly and unmistakably reserves the decision of arbitrability for the arbitrator

Holding that district court findings were subject to clear error review where parties did not seek evidentiary hearing and "filed multiple briefs and extensive evidence with the court over a two-year period"

Holding that where choice of law clause provided that New York state law "would govern 'the agreement and its enforcement'" statute of limitations issue was for the court

Holding that the FAA applied since the out-of-state parties were involved in the transaction and various materials were obtained from out-of-state

Defining the word "commerce" in the language of the Commerce Clause itself

Barring parties from seeking a stay of arbitral proceedings where they "participated" in those proceedings

Providing that proceedings affecting arbitration may “be brought in the county where at least one of the parties resides or is doing business or where the arbitration was held or is pending”

Limiting the limitations period for causes of action accruing outside of New York where the foreign jurisdiction imposes a shorter statute of limitations than the state does