Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scalia
Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) entitles litigants in federal court to a stay of any action that is “referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing.” 9 U. S. C. § 3. Section 16(a)(1)(A), in turn, allows an appeal from “an order... refusing a stay of any action under section 3.” We address in this case whether appellate courts have jurisdiction under § 16(a) to review denials of stays requested by litigants who were not parties to the relevant arbitration agreement, and whether §3 can ever mandate a stay in such circumstances.
I
Respondents Wayne Carlisle, James Bushman,…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Abney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by883 opinions
- Astrue v. RatliffSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Jessica Kramer v. Toyota Motor CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- McGill v. Citibank, N.A.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Kpmg LLP v. CocchiSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
878 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.