Menu
Court Decisions about Arbitration
GUEST-POST PART II | Class and Consolidated Arbitration Under the Federal Arbitration Act: What Issues Will the United States Supreme Court Confront in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. V. AnimalFeeds Int’l Co.?
By Victoria VanBuren - August 10, 2009
Part II: The Legal Landscape: Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle By Philip J. Loree Jr. Introduction As discussed in Part I, Stolt-Nielsen is a do-over of sorts. Back in 2003 the United States Supreme Court set out to decide in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle whether imposing class arbitration on parties whose agreement is silent on that point is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. But that never happened because it turned out the
GUEST-POST PART I | Class and Consolidated Arbitration Under the Federal Arbitration Act: What Issues Will the United States Supreme Court Confront in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. V. AnimalFeeds Int’l Co.?
By Victoria VanBuren - August 6, 2009
Part I: Introduction By Philip J. Loree Jr. Introduction The Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum is delighted to guest post once again on Karl Bayer’s and Victoria VanBuren’s wonderful ADR blog, Disputing. Because Victoria and I have both written fairly extensively about Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel, Inc, 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008), and about two of the most frequently cited cases construing Hall Street’s dictum on manifest disregard of the l
Fifth Circuit: You Should Not Be Allowed a Second Bite at the Apple Through Arbitration
By Victoria VanBuren - July 30, 2009
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a party waived its right to arbitrate by waiting one year after the suit was filed before seeking to compel arbitration. In Petroleum Pipe Americas Co., v. Jindal Saw Ltd., (No. 08-20461) (5th. Cir. July 9, 2009) Defendant Jindal Saw Ltd. (“Jindal”) is an Indian manufacturer of pipelines and plaintiff Petroleum Pipe Americas Corp. (“PPA”) is a Texas corpora
Texas Supreme Court Finds that Court Abused Its Discretion by Allowing Pre-Arbitration Discovery
By Victoria VanBuren - July 21, 2009
The Supreme Court of Texas held that a court abused its discretion by permitting discovery instead of deciding a motion to compel arbitration. In re Houston Pipe Line Co., __S.W.3d __ (Texas 2009) (No. 08-0800) involves a gas purchase agreement between Houston Pipe Line Company, L.P. and O’Connor & Hewitt, Ltd. The agreement was based on the Houston Ship Channel Price Index (the “Index”) and contained the following arbitrati
Professor Alan Scott Rau Comments on In re Morgan Stanley
By Victoria VanBuren - July 15, 2009
Professor Alan Scott Rau has forwarded us the following comments relating to our post of yesterday, in which we summarized the recent Texas Supreme Court case of In re Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., __ S.W.3d __ (Texas 2009) (No. 07-0665). The Texas Supreme Court gets it absolutely right [and totally without regard to the fact that they quote me.] How could it be otherwise? Compare Justice Hecht’s dissent: “A raving lunatic in a stra
Texas Supreme Court Holds that the Court, not the Arbitrator Should Decide the Issue of Capacity to Contract
By Victoria VanBuren - July 14, 2009
The Texas Supreme Court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to submit to the arbitrator the question of whether a party to an arbitration agreement lacks the mental capacity to assent. Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson and Justices Wainwright, Green, Johnson, and Willett joined. Justice Brister filed a concurring opinion, Justice Willett filed a concurring opinion, Ju
Arbitration of Discrimination Claims After 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett
By Victoria VanBuren - July 8, 2009
On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett (find our case summary here and additional comments here). Then, in May, a U.S. District Court in Colorado decided the first case post-Pyett (blogged here). Recently, we came across yet another Pyett progeny. This time, it was the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York‘s turn in Shipkevich v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp. & Aramark, 2
U.S. Supreme Court Vacates Sixth Circuit Decision that Nonsignatories May not Enforce Arbitration Agreement
By Victoria VanBuren - July 7, 2009
Looks like the U.S. Supreme Court can’t have enough of arbitration this term. As posted at the Adjunct Law Prof, the Court vacated and remanded Kimberlin v Renasant Bank (Dkt No 08-816). The issue decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was whether non-parties to an arbitration agreement can invoke Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act and compel arbitration. The U.S. Supreme Court decided this issue recently in Arthur
Texas Supreme Court Rules on Arbitration of Tort Claims in Employment Contract
By Victoria VanBuren - July 6, 2009
The Supreme Court of Texas held that a post-injury arbitration acknowledgment agreement is valid and compelled arbitration of tort claims within the context of an employment contract. In In re Macy’s Texas, Inc., __ S.W.3d __ (Texas 2009) (No. 08-0584), Erica Tomsic was an employee at department store Macy’s. Tomsic claims to have injured her back while working at the store in April 2007. On May 9 2007, Tomsic signed an “Arbitra
Texas Federal Court Finds Blockbuster’s Online User Agreement ‘Illusory’ and Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration
By Victoria VanBuren - June 24, 2009
[Ed. note: This case is a bit old, but an important one. It somehow got lost in the pile of papers sitting on my desk. Thanks to San Antonio arbitrator and mediator Don Philbin for bringing this case to our attention back in April. ] The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that an arbitration clause in Blockbuster’s Online User Agreement is illusory, thus, unenforceable and denied Blockbuster’s motion
Legal Research
Recent Posts
Search
Legal Research
© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy