Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd

The court held that a worker who contributes to the intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption under Section 1 without crossing state lines or interacting with any vehicles that do.

The court held that, after a federal court has stayed claims in a pending action under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, that court has jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award on those claims under Sections 9 and 10 of the act.

The Court held that where one contract between parties sends disputes to arbitration and another contract sends disputes to courts, a court must decide which contract governs.

The Court held that a federal district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing.

The Court unanimously ruled that a private arbitral tribunal overseas is not a "foreign or international tribunal" under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), and also held the same for the investor-state arbitral tribunal in the companion case.· AI-written

The Court held that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories to those agreements.

The Court unanimously held that the "wholly groundless" exception to arbitrability violated the Federal Arbitration Act, so a valid delegation of arbitrability to an arbitrator must be honored even if a court thinks the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless.· AI-written

The court held that the FAA preempts any state rule that discriminates on its face against arbitration or that covertly accomplishes the same objective by disfavoring contracts that have the defining features of arbitration agreements.

In a 6–3 opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court reversed a decision by the California Court of Appeal that refused to enforce an arbitration agreement between DIRECTV and its customers.

The court held that a court of the United States that is reviewing an arbitration award made under a treaty should interpret and apply "threshold" provisions concerning arbitration using the framework developed for interpreting similar provisions in ordinary contracts.

The court held that, under the limited judicial review allowed for decisions from binding arbitration, the sole question is whether the arbitrator arguably interpreted the parties' contract, not whether the arbitrator erred.

The court held that because the Credit Repair Organizations Act is silent on whether claims can proceed in an arbitrable forum, the Federal Arbitration Act requires the arbitration agreement to be enforced according to its terms.

Was decided by the United States Supreme Court.

The court held that class action arbitration is permitted under the Federal Arbitration Act only if all parties specifically agree to it.

The Court held that state and federal courts cannot, on a motion to vacate or to modify an arbitration award, expand the limited scope of judicial review specified in 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11, including terms that were agreed upon by the parties.

In a class action against a payday lender claiming loan agreements were unlawful, the Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act an arbitrator, not a court, decides the contract's legality unless the arbitration clause itself is challenged.· AI-written

The court held that an arbitrator must determine whether the contracts forbid class arbitration.

In a dispute over mandatory arbitration of private securities fraud claims, the Court held that Wilko v. Swan did not apply to claims under the 1934 Act, reversing the Second Circuit, and also held that RICO claims were arbitrable.· AI-written

By a 5–3 margin it upheld the lower court, requiring that the dealer arbitrate its claim before a panel in Tokyo, as stipulated in the contract.

In a dispute where 7-Eleven franchisees sued in California state court and the parent company invoked arbitration clauses, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act applied to contracts executed under state law.· AI-written