Vaden v. Discover Bank
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Ginsburg
Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §4, authorizes a United States district court to entertain a petition to compel arbitration if the court would have jurisdiction, “save for [the arbitration] agreement,” over “a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties.” We consider in this opinion two questions concerning a district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over a § 4 petition: Should a district court, if asked to compel arbitration pursuant to §4, “look through” the petition and grant the requested relief if the court would have federal-question jurisdiction over…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,088 opinions
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USACourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of LhotkaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Badgerow v. WaltersSupreme Court of the United States · 2022
- Northern Grain Marketing, LLC v. Marvin GrevingCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2014
- Karen Hansen v. Group Health CooperativeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
1,083 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.