Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Keating v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1982No. S.F. 24242Published

1ConcurrenceRichardson, J.

Iconcur with the majority’s conclusions that the arbitration agreement is enforceable and that Southland did not waive its right to arbitration. I itespectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s further holdings that the Franchise Investment Law claims are not subject to arbitration and that class action arbitration is an available valid remedy.

A. Arbitrability of the Franchise Investment Law Claims

Contrary to the majority, I believe that the state cannot immunize certain civil actions from application of the Federal Arbitration Act merely by fashioning, after the Federal Securities Act,…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Wilko v. SwanSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  4. Blackie v. BarrackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
  5. Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API