First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan
- Decided
- May 22, 1995
- Docket
- 94-560
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,743 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement — Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (2002)
- holding that, when deciding whether the parties agreed to arbitrate, "courts generally ... should apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts" — J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster (2003)
- holding that question of whether party agreed to arbitrate was for the court to decide based on state-law principles of contract formation — Will-Drill Resources, Inc. v. Samson Resources Co. (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we consider two questions about how courts should review certain matters under the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq.
(1988 ed. and Supp. V): (1) how a district court should review an arbitrator’s decision that the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute, and (2) how a court of appeals should review a district court’s decision confirming, or refusing to vacate, an arbitration award.
Statutes cited
Cite this
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.