Legal Opinion

Dickler v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 30, 1991PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, Judge:

In this opinion we are called upon to determine whether the trial court erred in holding that in Pennsylvania a claim for equitable relief is by law, outside the terms of an arbitration agreement. The trial court held that this class action suit, calling for equitable as well as legal relief, was outside the terms of the arbitration agreement between the appellant, Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. [hereinafter “Shearson”], and the appellees [hereinafter the “Dickler Group”]. We find that the broad agreement [hereinafter “Shearson client agreement”] signed by the parties encompasses…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  3. At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Discover Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
  3. Smith v. Cumberland Group, Ltd.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Larketta Randolph, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama and Green Tree Financial CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2001
  5. Trombetta v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

21 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