Citation network
Green Tree Financial Corp. Vs. Bazzle
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 2003
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. 444 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Green Tree Financial Corp., Nka Conseco Finance Corp. V. BazzleSearch
-
in favor of arbitration.''' Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. SolerSearch
-
parties agreed to, which does not concern a state statute or judicial procedures, cf. Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. BoardSearch
-
unenforceable, but Green Tree pursued an interlocutory appeal and the State Court of Appeals reversed. Lackey v. GreenSearch
-
to have agreed that an arbitrator, not a judge, would answer the relevant question. See First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSearch
-
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. SolerSearch
-
evidence to the contrary). AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. CommunicationsSearch
-
to decide. Howsam v. DeanSearch
-
applies to a certain type of controversy. See generally Howsam, supra. See also John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. LivingstonSearch
-
agreed to. That question does not concern a state statute or judicial procedures, cf. Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. BoardSearch
-
of these deter- 455 minations by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. See Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. BoardSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
parties' agreement should have been made in the first instance by the arbitrator, rather than the court. See Howsam v. DeanSearch
-
because JUSTICE BREYER'S opinion expresses a view of the case close to my own, I concur in the judgment. See Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
agreed to be submitted to him is given considerable deference by the courts. See Major League Baseball Players Assn. v. GarveySearch
-
of that contract is for the court, not for the arbitrator. As we stated in First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSearch
-
to him. Thus, this case is controlled by First Options, and not by our more recent decision in Howsam v. DeanSearch
-
Sons, Inc. v. LivingstonSearch
-
Allied-Bruce Terminix Coso v. DobsonSearch
-
Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. BoardSearch
-
Id., at 477 (quoting Hines v. DavidowitzSearch
-
Mastrobuono v. ShearsonSearch
-
quoting Volt, supra, at 479 (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. CasarottoSearch
-
Volt, supra, at 474 (quoting Scherk v. Alberto-CulverSearch
-
Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614 , 626 (1985) (quoting Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSearch
-
et seq., does not apply to proceedings in state courts. Allied-Bruce Terminix Coso v. DobsonSearch
-
U. S. 265, 285-297 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). See also Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. CasarottoSearch
-
Syllabus Green Tree Financial Corp., Nka Conseco Finance Corp. V. BazzleSearch
-
Lackey v. GreenSearch
-
See First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSearch
-
AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. CommunicationsSearch
-
Howsam v. DeanSearch
-
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. LivingstonSearch
-
the Supreme Court of South Carolina. See Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. BoardSearch
-
See Howsam v. DeanSearch
-
See Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
See Major League Baseball Players Assn. v. GarveySearch
-
Scherk v. Alberto-CulverSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial