Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Matters relating to crimes, status and family law are generally not considered to be arbitrable, as the power of the parties to enter into an agreement upon these matters is at least restricted. However, most other disputes that involve private rights between two parties can be resolved using arbitration.
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning arbitration of antitrust claims. The Court heard the case on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which had ruled that the arbitration clause in a Puerto Rican car dealer's franchise agreement was broad enough to reach its ...
Arbitration, in the context of the law of the United States, is a form of alternative dispute resolution.Specifically, arbitration is an alternative to litigation through which the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective evidence and legal arguments to a third party (i.e., the arbitrator) for resolution.
Warrior & Gulf Co had a steel transportation company from Chickasaw, Alabama.Its employees had a collective agreement through United Steelworkers.In 1956 and 1958 the company laid off workers, from 42 to 23 workers in the bargaining unit as it outsourced maintenance work to other companies which hired some laid off employees at reduced wages, but doing the same work.
Small business owners should not forget about a rule — currently in legal limbo — that would require them to register with an agency called the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN ...
Sherman Act claims are arbitrable, even when contract calls for arbitration before a foreign panel. Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987). Securities fraud claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are arbitrable. Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987) Volt Inf. Sciences v. Stanford Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (1989 ...
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 8, 2019. The case decided the question of whether a court may disregard a valid delegation of arbitrability—a contract provision stating that an arbitrator should decide whether a dispute is subject to arbitration—when the argument in favor of ...
Since the consulting agreement was inexorably tied to the transfer of business assets from Flood to Prima, it was covered. "There could not be a clearer case of a contract evidencing a transaction in interstate commerce ", he wrote, [ 9 ] responding to the dissent's suggestion that the language should be more narrowly interpreted.