Brown v. Pacific Life Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that investors’ claims of error, fraud, or unconscionability in connection with their underlying contracts as a whole, and not just the arbitration clauses included in such agreements, were for arbitrator, not court, to decide
• noting that any prejudice from piecemeal litigation is overcome by the “strong bias in favor of arbitration”
• “Allowing a federal court to order arbitration, even where a state court may construe an arbitration clause differently, is fully consistent with ... established congressional intent.”
• finding claims that arbitration clauses themselves were contracts of adhesion and, therefore, unenforceable are properly addressed by a federal court.
• rejecting the appellees’ argument that a stay in the case ren- dered the order non-appealable because the stay was not is- sued “pursuant to section 3” as required under § 16(b)(1)
• explaining that the statute’s general purpose

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).