Legal Opinion

Moscatiello v. Hilliard

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 27, 2007No. 6 WAP 2007PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice EAKIN.

Appellants invested $1.5 million in a single mutual fund managed by appellees. Appellants signed customer agreements with appellees containing an arbitration clause and a choice of law provision. The arbitration clause stated any disputes would be settled in arbitration under National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) rules, which the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., governs. The choice-of-law provision stated Pennsylvania law would govern.

After losing $574,000 in the mutual fund, appellants filed multiple claims with the NASD against appellees…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  4. Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. CasarottoSupreme Court of the United States · 1996

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  2. Weinar, M. v. Lex, W.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. Zions Management Services v. RecordUtah Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Del Ciotto v. Pennsylvania Hospital of the University of Penn Health SystemSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  5. Letke Security Contractors, Inc. v. United States Surety Co.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2010

23 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