Citation network
Southland Corp. Vs. Keating
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 23, 1984
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 1 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Southland Corp. v. KeatingSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1984) Southland Corp. v. KeatingSearch
-
of the California statute. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
a body of federal substantive law that is applicable in both state and federal courts. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. MercurySearch
-
the trial court's refusal to compel arbitration of appellees' claims under the Franchise Investment Law. Keating v. SuperiorSearch
-
by a vote of 4-2, reversed the ruling that claims asserted under the Franchise Investment Law are arbitrable. Keating v. SuperiorSearch
-
Under Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. MercurySearch
-
litigation, one of the very risks the parties, by contracting for arbitration, sought to eliminate. In The Bremen v. ZapataSearch
-
See Bailey v. AndersonSearch
-
Act rests on the authority of Congress to enact substantive rules under the Commerce Clause. In Prima Paint Corp. v. FloodSearch
-
At least since 1824, Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause has been held plenary. Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
as well as federal courts. Prima Paint, supra, at 388 U. S. 420 . In Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. MercurySearch
-
a broad reach of the Act, unencumbered by state law constraints. As was stated in Metro Industrial Painting Corp. v. TerminalSearch
-
proceedings by federal courts. 31 Cal.3d at 611-612, 645 P.2d at 1208. E.g., Compania Espanola de Petroleo, S. A. v. NereusSearch
-
or otherwise. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. MercurySearch
-
Kruss Bros. Lumber Co. v. LouisSearch
-
The California Supreme Court justified its holding by reference to our conclusion in Wilko v. SwanSearch
-
law will not be deemed preempted by a federal statute unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. Ray v. AtlanticSearch
-
Metro Industrial Painting Corp. v. TerminalSearch
-
it would appear that the judiciary must fashion the limitations as a matter of federal common law. Cf. Textile Workers v. LincolnSearch
-
Prima Paint Corp. v. FloodSearch
-
of the decisions of the States to exert police powers as they deem best for the welfare of their citizens. Cf. Wallis v. PanSearch
-
Wilson v. OmahaSearch
-
United States v. KimbellSearch
-
Clearfield Trust Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
see, e.g., Comprehensive Merchandising Catalogs, Page 465 U. S. 20 Inc. v. MadisonSearch
-
in certain contexts could be reconciled with the general policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements. Wilko v. SwanSearch
-
of the relationship between the parties to the agreement, and the purpose of the regulatory scheme. See, e.g., Scherk v. Alberto-CulverSearch
-
valid Page 465 U. S. 21 irrespective of their purpose or effect. See generally Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Act. A state policy excluding wage claims from arbitration, cf. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. WareSearch
-
presented here is the result of three subsequent decisions of this Court. In 1938, this Court decided Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
virtue of the Art. III power to control federal court jurisdiction. Eighteen years later, the Court decided Bernhardt v. PolygraphicSearch
-
In Prima Paint Corp. v. FloodSearch
-
the FAA applies to state court proceedings. One statement on the subject did appear in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. MercurySearch
-
Brown v. WesternSearch
-
enforcement. At common law, many jurisdictions were hostile to arbitration agreements. Kulukundis Shipping Co. v. AmtorgSearch
-
Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. BombolisSearch
-
what procedures it will follow to vindicate the newly articulated federal rights. Cf. Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. v. MayfieldSearch
-
and promptly secure a federal court order to compel arbitration. See, e.g., Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. MercurySearch
-
the FAA was passed specifically to rectify forum-shopping problems created by this Court's decision in Swift v. TysonSearch
-
that does not withstand scrutiny. The Court ignores the drafters' carefully devised plan for dealing with those problems. v. Today'sSearch
-
decision adds yet another chapter to the FAA's already colorful history. In 1842, this Court's ruling in Swift v. TysonSearch
-
the intent was to create uniform law binding only in the federal courts. In Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
Two Circuits had previously addressed the problem. Robert Lawrence Co. v. DevonshireSearch
-
American Airlines, Inc. v. LouisvilleSearch
-
after which the FAA was patterned, had been upheld against constitutional attack the previous year in Red Cross Line v. AtlanticSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial