Roberts v. Assessment Board of Review

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the relevant provisions of the FAA lacked the language found in a separate provision of the FAA that warranted a look-through approach for petitions to compel
• holding that the Federal Arbitration Act itself does not generate subject matter jurisdiction
• holding that the FAA’s provisions “authoriz[ing] parties to arbitration agreements to file specified actions in federal court,” including “applications to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitral awards . . . do not themselves support federal jurisdiction”
• holding that the “look through” approach does not apply when a court determines whether it has federal jurisdiction over applications to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitral awards under § 9 and § 10 of the FAA
• holding a federal 10 court may entertain an action brought under the FAA only if there is an independent jurisdictional 11 basis
• reaffirming that the FAA’s provisions authorizing “applications to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitral awards ... do not themselves support federal jurisdiction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).