Difference between revisions of "Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "In ''Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S. Ct. 1204 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court by holding that when a contra...") |
(wayward italics) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S. Ct. 1204 (2006), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] reversed the Florida Supreme Court by holding that when a contract has an arbitration clause under the [[Federal Arbitration Act]], an argument that a contract containing an arbitration provision is void for illegality must also go to arbitration, not to a court: | + | In ''Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna'', 546 U.S. 440, 126 S. Ct. 1204 (2006), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] reversed the Florida Supreme Court by holding that when a contract has an arbitration clause under the [[Federal Arbitration Act]], an argument that a contract containing an arbitration provision is void for illegality must also go to arbitration, not to a court: |
:"regardless of whether the challenge is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator." | :"regardless of whether the challenge is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator." | ||
546 U.S. at 449. | 546 U.S. at 449. | ||
[[category:arbitration]] | [[category:arbitration]] | ||
Revision as of 23:50, June 1, 2017
In Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S. Ct. 1204 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court by holding that when a contract has an arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act, an argument that a contract containing an arbitration provision is void for illegality must also go to arbitration, not to a court:
- "regardless of whether the challenge is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator."
546 U.S. at 449.