Supreme Court· 3/6/1995

Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

Citations

514 U.S. 52
115 S. Ct. 1212
131 L. Ed. 2d 76
1995 U.S. LEXIS 1820

How courts have described this case

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

holding that choice-of-law provision in arbitration clause covered arbitration, while general choice-of-law clause in contract covered the other rights and duties of the parties
holding that punitive damages claims are subject to arbitration unless the contract exempts such claims from the coverage of the arbitration clause
holding that an agreement that did not unambiguously limit the scope of arbitration by choosing a state-law rule did not effectively do so under the FAA
holding that an agreement that did not unambiguously limit the scope of arbitration by choosing a state-law rule did not effectively do so under the FAA
concluding that a provision that provided that “any controversy” arising out of transactions between the parties “shall be settled by arbitration” was a broad provision
holding that a choice-of-law provision opting for New York law was not sufficient to annul an arbitrator's award that was prohibited under New York law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Thomas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

745 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.

8 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.