Legal Opinion
Robert Muh v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Does I Through Xx
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 8, 1976No. 74-2783PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALLACE, Circuit Judge:
We have before us the question whether an arbitration clause contained in the constitution of the New York Stock Exchange is binding upon the parties and forecloses court action on the claim asserted. Muh brought suit on a contract in the California state court against Newburger, Loeb & Co., Inc. (Newburger) and the case was removed to the federal court based upon diversity of • citizenship. Newburger then moved for a stay of the action pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, contending that the claim must be arbitrated. The district court agreed and Muh appealed. We have…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Silver v. New York Stock ExchangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. WareSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Coenen v. R. W. Pressprich & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Manuel KAPLAN; Carol Kaplan; MK Investments, Inc., Appellants, v. FIRST OPTIONS OF CHICAGO, INC., AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
- Republic of Nicaragua, a Foreign Sovereign v. Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, and Castle & Cooke, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Barrowclough v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Chan v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1986
- Barrowclough v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.