§Why CasetextPricing

Dimitrios P. Biller v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al.

MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Compel Arbitration 59

29 Cited authorities

  1. First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan

    514 U.S. 938 (1995)   Cited 5,391 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a circuit court reviewing a district court's disposition of an arbitration award should apply "ordinary, not special, standards."

  2. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

    537 U.S. 79 (2002)   Cited 2,518 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

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

    475 U.S. 643 (1986)   Cited 5,396 times   23 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. Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth

    473 U.S. 614 (1985)   Cited 4,244 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Act emphatically favors arbitration

  5. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.

    500 U.S. 20 (1991)   Cited 3,037 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1994 ed.), may be subject to compulsory arbitration

  6. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd

    470 U.S. 213 (1985)   Cited 3,338 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "shall" in a separate section of the FAA constituted a mandate to the district court

  7. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.

    481 U.S. 1 (1987)   Cited 2,262 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal court may not enjoin execution of a state court judgment pending appeal of that judgment to a state appellate court

  8. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson

    513 U.S. 265 (1995)   Cited 1,608 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that term "involving commerce" reflects "an intent to exercise Congress' commerce power to the full"

  9. Shearson/Am. Express Inc. v. McMahon

    482 U.S. 220 (1987)   Cited 1,799 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an arbitration clause was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act with respect to a claim under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

  10. Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys.

    207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,213 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "district court correctly found that the federal law of arbitrability under the FAA governs the allocation of authority between courts and arbitrators" despite arbitration agreement's choice-of-law provision

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

    9 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 11,924 times   208 Legal Analyses
    Defining the word "commerce" in the language of the Commerce Clause itself

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

    9 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 10,948 times   119 Legal Analyses
    Granting federal jurisdiction where there is "a transaction involving [interstate] commerce"

  13. Section 3 - Stay of proceedings where issue therein referable to arbitration

    9 U.S.C. § 3   Cited 7,109 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Providing for a stay of judicial proceedings on "issue referable to arbitration"

  14. Section 1691 - Notice after discovering facts entitling party to rescind

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1691   Cited 583 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Providing that whether a party delayed in giving notice of an intent to rescind is measured against the time when the party seeking rescission "discovered the facts which entitled him to rescind."

  15. Section 39 - Conveyance or contract before incapacity subject to rescission

    Cal. Civ. Code § 39   Cited 107 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) A conveyance or other contract of a person of unsound mind, but not entirely without understanding, made before the incapacity of the person has been judicially determined, is subject to rescission, as provided in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1688) of Title 5 of Part 2 of Division 3. (b) A rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that a person is of unsound mind shall exist for purposes of this section if the person is substantially unable to manage his or her own financial