AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am.

Holding that it was for the court to decide whether a particular labor dispute fell within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement

EPIC Sys. Corp. v. Lewis

Holding that, under Concepcion , "courts may not allow a contract defense to reshape traditional individualized arbitration" and "a rule seeking to declare individualized arbitration proceedings off limits" is preempted by the FAA

Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown

Holding that West Virginia's prohibition against predispute agreements to arbitrate personal-injury or wrongful-death claims against nursing homes was preempted by the FAA

Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable

Iskanian v. CSL Transportation Los Angeles, LLC

Holding that arbitration provisions banning class-action litigation or collective arbitration of employment-related claims are enforceable under the NLRA and the FAA's saving clause, but also holding that arbitration provisions banning representative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act violates that Act

Pinnacle Museum Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development (Us), LLC

Holding that an arbitration clause in CC&Rs was binding on the homeowners' association, even though the association did not exist as an independent entity when the CC&Rs were drafted and recorded

Moncharsh v. Heily Blase

Holding that "a party [who] is claiming the entire contract is illegal, or the arbitration agreement itself is illegal" must "raise the illegality question prior to participating in the arbitration process"

Roman v. Superior Court (Flo-Kem, Inc.)

Holding that "[w]hen bargaining power is not grossly unequal and reasonable alternatives exist, oppression typically inherent in adhesion contracts is minimal"

Kinney v. United HealthCare Services, Inc.

Holding a "unilateral obligation to arbitrate is itself so one-sided as to be substantively unconscionable"

Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California

Holding claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and other tort and statutory claims constituted disputes "arising under" the parties' agreement where those claims "center[ed] around and [were] clearly based upon" terms in the agreement and were "inextricably related to [the agreement's] terms and provisions"

Section 1 - "Maritime transactions" and "commerce" defined; exceptions to operation of title

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

Section 1614 - Presumptive evidence of consideration