Painewebber Incorporated v. Michael J. Bybyk and Joyce O. Bybyk
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1DissentVan Graafeiland, Circuit Judge
The eight-line decision of the court below is not simply “pithy,” as my colleagues generously describe it. It fails completely to discuss the parties’ expressed intent and the effect of such expressed intent on arbitrability. As a result, this Court has been forced to make this determination, a task that should have been performed by the district court. Unfortunately, our de novo undertaking has not left, us in unanimous accord.
In Volt Info. Sciences v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 479, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 1256, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989), the Court instructed us…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v. LuckieNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- In re the Arbitration between Paver & Wildfoerster & Catholic High School Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Application of Conticommodity Services Inc., for an Order Restraining Arbitration Attempted to Be Had by Philipp & LionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.