Legal Opinion
Directv, Inc. v. Imburgia
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided December 14, 2015No. 14–462Published
1Dissent · ThomasJustice Thomas
I remain of the view that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., does not apply to proceedings in state courts. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 285-297, 115 S.Ct. 834, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995) (dissenting opinion); see also Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346, 363, 128 S.Ct. 978, 169 L.Ed.2d 917 (2008) (same); Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 449, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006) (same); Green Tree Financial Corp . v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 460, 123 S.Ct. 2402, 156 L.Ed.2d 414 (2003) (same); Doctor's Associates, Inc. v.…
Also in this document: Dissent · Ginsburg.
2Cases cited22 opinions
- 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
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. RandolphSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.