Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.
2008 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that state and federal courts cannot, on a motion to vacate or to modify an arbitration award, expand the limited scope of judicial review specified in 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11, including terms that were agreed upon by the parties.
Quick Facts Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., Argued November 7, 2007 Decided March 25, 2008 ...
Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. | |
---|---|
Argued November 7, 2007 Decided March 25, 2008 | |
Full case name | Hall Street Associates, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Mattel, Inc. |
Docket no. | 06-989 |
Citations | 552 U.S. 576 (more) 128 S. Ct. 1396; 170 L. Ed. 2d 254; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 2911; 76 U.S.L.W. 4168; 2008 AMC 1058; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 121 |
Case history | |
Prior | Arbitration award vacated, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (D. Or. 2001), affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, 113 F. App'x 272 (9th Cir. 2004); arbitration award vacated again, No. 3:00-cv-00355, 2005 WL 8158950 (D. Or. June 30, 2005); reversed, 196 F. App'x 476 (9th Cir. 2006); cert. granted, 550 U.S. 968 (2007). |
Subsequent | Remanded, 531 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2008). |
Holding | |
State and federal courts cannot, on a motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award, apply standards agreed to by the parties that expand the scope of judicial review under the Federal Arbitration Act. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Souter, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito; Scalia (all but footnote 7) |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Kennedy |
Dissent | Breyer |
Laws applied | |
Federal Arbitration Act |
Close