The Anaconda v. American Sugar Refining Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• describing parties’ inabil 34 FREE ENTERPRISE FUND v. PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD. BREYER, J., dissenting ity to “stipulate away” what “the legislation declares”
• describing parties’ inabil- 34 FREE ENTERPRISE FUND v. PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD. BREYER, J., dissenting ity to “stipulate away” what “the legislation declares”
• noting that the FAA “obviously envisages action in a court on a cause of action and does not oust the court’s jurisdiction of the action, though the parties have agreed to arbi- trate”
• relying on Federal Arbitration Act, discussing granting of stay when ordering- parties to arbitration
• “The law is, and always has been, in the absence of a statute authorizing them to do so, that parties may not by private agreement oust the jurisdiction of the courts.”
• In enacting Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, “Congress plainly and emphatically declared that although the parties had agreed to arbitrate, the traditional admiralty procedure with its concomitant security should be available to the aggrieved party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).