Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Shearson/American Express Vs. Mcmahon

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 08, 1987

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

61 entries 3 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. Vs. Byrd US Supreme Court · Mar 04, 1985
    Relied / Followed
  2. Southland Corp. Vs. Keating US Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1984
  3. Wilko Vs. Swan US Supreme Court · Dec 07, 1953
  4. American Express v. McMahon
    Search
  5. American Express, Inc. v. McMahon
    Search
  6. of violations of the Act, but which does not impose any statutory duties. Page 482 U. S. 221 Wilko v. Swan
    Search
  7. waiver of a judicial forum only where arbitration is inadequate to protect the substantive rights at issue. Cf. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver
    Search
  8. is there any irreconcilable conflict between arbitration and RIC0's underlying purposes. Cf. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler
    Search
  9. terms of the agreement, concluding that such a result followed from this Court's decision in Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd
    Search
  10. The District Court also held that the McMahons' state law claims were arbitrable under Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd
    Search
  11. should be adjudicated only in a judicial forum. It distinguished this Court's reasoning in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler
    Search
  12. F.2d at 98. With respect to respondents' Exchange Act claims, the Court of Appeals noted that, under Wilko v. Swan
    Search
  13. b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. See, e.g., Allegaert v. Perot
    Search
  14. Greater Continental Corp. v. Schechter
    Search
  15. F.2d 1100 (CA2 1970). The court acknowledged that Scherk v. Alberto-Culver
    Search
  16. Co., 417 U. S. 506 (1974), and Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd
    Search
  17. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver
    Search
  18. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury
    Search
  19. a party bound by an agreement raises a claim founded on statutory rights. As we observed in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler
    Search
  20. U.S. at 473 U. S. 626 -627, quoting Wilko v. Swan
    Search
  21. Dean Witter Reynolds v. Byrd
    Search
  22. a). We do not read Wilko v. Swan
    Search
  23. Indeed, any different reading of Wilko would be inconsistent with this Court's decision in Scherk v. Alberto-Culver
    Search
  24. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler
    Search
  25. s subsequent Page 482 U. S. 232 decisions involving the Arbitration Act. See, e.g., Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler
    Search
  26. NASD), suggesting that arbitral tribunals are fully capable of handling such matters. See, e.g., Axelrod & Co. v. Kordich
    Search
  27. Brown v. Gilligan
    Search
  28. concluded that Wilko does not apply to the submission to arbitration of existing disputes, see, e.g., Gardner v. Shearson
    Search
  29. Moran v. Paine
    Search
  30. exchanges, by giving the exchanges a means of enforcing their rules against their members. See, e.g., Tullis v. Kohlmeyer
    Search
  31. Axelrod & Co. v. Kordich
    Search
  32. of the conferees that Page 482 U. S. 237 this amendment did not change existing law, as articulated in Wilko v. Swan
    Search
  33. Wilko to the Exchange Act without enacting into law any provision remotely addressing that subject. See Train v. City
    Search
  34. b) to the Securities Act, see, e.g., Axelrod & Co. v. Kordich
    Search
  35. of Appeals decisions extending Wilko to the Exchange Act, as the McMahons contend. See Greater Continental Corp. v. Schechter
    Search
  36. b) claims. See Scherk v. Alberto-Culver
    Search
  37. bill had been passed by the Senate, and it received only abbreviated discussion in either House. See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex
    Search
  38. Mavaja, Inc. v. Bodkin
    Search
  39. an irreconcilable conflict between arbitration and RICO's underlying purposes. Our decision in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler
    Search
  40. c) claims nonarbitrable. See Page v. Moseley
    Search
  41. c) is no different in this respect from the federal antitrust laws. In Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex
    Search
  42. arbitration, even though such conduct may also give rise to claims of criminal liability. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler
    Search
  43. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex
    Search
  44. claims that would advance society's fight against organized crime. See Sedima, Page 482 U. S. 242 S.P.R.L. v. Imrex
    Search
  45. of the Arbitration Act. v. Accordingly
    Search
  46. Cf. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver
    Search
  47. Cf. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler
    Search
  48. Allegaert v. Perot
    Search
  49. and Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd
    Search
  50. Gardner v. Shearson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial