• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


2010 Arbitration Case Law: U.S. Supreme Court

0
by Beth Graham

Thursday, Dec 30, 2010


Tweet

Today, Disputing continues its 2010 Year-End Highlights. The U.S. Supreme Court decided several cases related to arbitration this year:

On April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds, 08-1198. The Court held that “Imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq.”

On June 1, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Montana, 09-911. The question presented was whether the Montana Supreme Court violated the Federal Arbitration Act by refusing to compel arbitration of a dispute between tobacco companies and settling states that courts of other states and territories held arbitrable under the plain terms of the nationwide Master Settlement Agreement.

On June 21, the Court decided Rent-A-Center, West v. Jackson, 09-497. The question presented was whether a district court is required in all cases to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (”FAA”) is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this “gateway” issue to the arbitrator for decision?

On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Granite Rock v. Teamsters, 08-1214. In their decision, the Court held that a district court, not an arbitrator, should decide a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) ratification date. The court noted that although “[t]he CBA requires arbitration of disputes that ‘arise under’ the agreement. The parties’ ratification-date dispute does not clearly fit that description.”

On October 4, the Court denied certiorari in two unpublished cases from the 5th Circuit. In Louisiana Safety Association of Timbermen – Self Insurers Fund v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et. al, 09-945, (No. 06-30262, 5th Circuit, November 9, 2009, unpublished), the Court was asked to consider whether Chapter 2 of the FAA is an “Act of Congress” subject to the anti-preemption provision of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Zurich American Insurance Company et. al v. Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., 09-1305, (No. 09-31031, 5th Circuit, December 17, 2009, unpublished) asked whether, in a case removed under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. § 205, an order denying a motion to compel arbitration and remanding to state court is appealable under the FAA’s express right of interlocutory appeal from such denials, 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(C), notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).

On November 9, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 09-893, a class-wide arbitration case from the 9th Circuit. AT&T concerns the applicability of state law unconscionability defenses to class arbitration exclusion clauses in consumer arbitration agreements. Disputing will be keeping an eye out in 2011 for the Court’s opinion.

Finally, on December 13, the Court denied certiorari in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Lagstein, 10-534. The case sought to address whether a “manifest disregard of the law” standard of review for arbitration awards remains after the Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C v. Mattell, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008).

Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law, U.S. Supreme Court

Related Posts

  • Supreme Court NewsSupreme Court News
  • Supreme Court Denies Cert in Manifest Disregard CaseSupreme Court Denies Cert in Manifest Disregard Case
  • U.S. Supreme Court Grants Cert in Arbitration Case, Denies AnotherU.S. Supreme Court Grants Cert in Arbitration Case, Denies Another
  • Article | Revelation and Reaction: The Struggle to Shape American ArbitrationArticle | Revelation and Reaction: The Struggle to Shape American Arbitration
  • New Arbitration Petition Before the U.S. Supreme CourtNew Arbitration Petition Before the U.S. Supreme Court
  • 2009 Arbitration Case Law: U.S. Supreme Court2009 Arbitration Case Law: U.S. Supreme Court

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Beth Graham

Beth Graham earned a Master of Arts in Information Science and Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law, where she was an Eastman Memorial Law Scholar. Beth is licensed to practice law in Texas and the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Texas Bar College and holds CIPP/US, CIPP/E, and CIPM certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy