Citation network
Volt Inf. Sciences Vs. Stanford Univ.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 06, 1989
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Volt Inf. Sciences v. StanfordSearch
-
Univ. - 489 U.S. 468 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Volt Inf. Sciences v. StanfordSearch
-
Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (1989) Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. BoardSearch
-
be resolved with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration. See Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. MercurySearch
-
as they see fit. Just as they may limit by contract the issues which they will arbitrate, Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. SolerSearch
-
Id. at 70 (quoting Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Scherk v. Alberto-CulverSearch
-
id. at 92-96, citing Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. MercurySearch
-
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. SolerSearch
-
of contract interpretation to the interpretation of an arbitration agreement within the scope of the Act, see Perry v. ThomasSearch
-
provision, nor does it reflect a congressional intent to occupy the entire field of arbitration. See Bernhardt v. PolygraphicSearch
-
to arbitrate from excluding certain claims from the scope of their arbitration agreement, see Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. SolerSearch
-
Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., supra, at 473 U. S. 628 (citing Prima Paint Corp. v. FloodSearch
-
of the statute against this challenge, our appellate jurisdiction would seem to be assured. See Longshoremen v. DavisSearch
-
Japan Line, Ltd. v. CountySearch
-
of Los Angeles, 441 U. S. 434 , 441 U. S. 441 (1979) (citing Cohen v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Warren Trading Post Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
Datanke-Walker Milling Co. v. BondurantSearch
-
and 2 -- are applicable in state as well as federal court, see Southland Corp. v. KeatingSearch
-
are nonetheless applicable in state court. See Southland Corp v. KeatingSearch
-
Many of our cases that so hold involve, understandably enough, claims under the Contract Clause. In Appleby v. CitySearch
-
Id. at 271 U. S. 379 -380. Similarly, in Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. BrandSearch
-
Id. at 303 U. S. 100 . See also Phelps v. BoardSearch
-
U. S. 561 (1942). The issue has not arisen solely in cases brought under the Contract Clause. Memphis Gas Co. v. BeelerSearch
-
to review state law decisions in such circumstances is not limited to the interpretation of contracts. In Rogers v. AlabamaSearch
-
Steelworkers v. WarriorSearch
-
extent) a given contract provides for arbitration. We have stated this most clearly in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. MercurySearch
-
More recently, in Mitsubishi Motors v. SolerSearch
-
at 473 U. S. 626 , quoting Moses H. Cone, supra, at 460 U. S. 24 . See also Southland Corp. v. KeatingSearch
-
so as to bar review by this Court. See Enterprise Irrigation Dist. v. FarmersSearch
-
in this case, the state court's judgment might have been different, and our review is therefore not barred. Cf. Ake v. OklahomaSearch
-
in our opinions, we ascribed no significance whatever to them in connection with the applicability of the FAA. Scherk v. Alberto-CulverSearch
-
Bernhardt v. PolygraphicSearch
-
settled principles of federal supremacy, the law of any place in the United States includes federal law. See Claffin v. HousemanSearch
-
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. MercurySearch
-
which indisputably does apply in state court, Southland Corp. v. KeatingSearch
-
to be bound by state procedural rulings that would have prevented us from reaching the federal issue. See, e.g., Davis v. WechslerSearch
-
Brown v. WesternSearch
-
James v. KentuckySearch
-
While in recent years we may have been more willing to examine state procedural rulings, see e.g., Henry v. MississippiSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Volt Inf. Sciences v. StanfordSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial