<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" version="2.0">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Economic Activity Issues - Arbitration Arguments</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/economic-activity/arbitration/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  <itunes:image>http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg</itunes:image>
  <itunes:category text="Government &amp; Organizations"/>
      <itunes:subtitle>U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</itunes:subtitle>
    
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;John Cardegna signed a contract for a loan from Buckeye Check Cashing. The contract contained a clause in which Cardegna agreed to resolve any controversies over the loan through arbitration. Cardegna later sued Buckeye, claiming that the conditions for the loan stipulated by the contract were illegal. Buckeye filed a motion in Florida district court to have the case resolved by arbitration, as required by the contract. Cardegna countered that the contract as a whole was illegal and that the arbitration clause was therefore not enforceable. The court agreed and ruled for Cardegna.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On appeal, the state appeals court reversed, holding that the Federal Arbirtration Act, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, allows arbitration clauses to be enforced even if they are part of otherwise invalid contracts. The appeals court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Prima Paint Corporation v. Flood &amp; Conklin Manufacturing Company. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the appeals court's use of Prima Paint, however, because the contract in that case had been merely voidable, while the contract in Cardegna's case was actually illegal. The Florida Supreme Court therefore reversed, ruling in favor of Cardegna.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Under the Federal Arbitration Act, may a party avoid arbitration by arguing that the contract in which the arbitration clause is contained is illegal?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>04-1264_20051129-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1264/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1264/argument/04-1264_20051129-argument.mp3" length="14474731" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 1984 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>83-1708_19841204-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_1708/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_1708/argument/83-1708_19841204-argument.mp3" length="13663296" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>First Options v. Kaplan - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 1995 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;After the October 1987 stock market crash, First Options of Chicago, Inc., a firm that clears stock trades on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, demanded that Manuel Kaplan, his wife, and his wholly owned investment company, MK Investments, Inc. (MKI) immediately pay the entire MKI debt. When First Options' demands for payment went unsatisfied, it sought arbitration by a panel of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange based on workout agreements, which governed the working out of debts owned by Kaplan, his wife, and MKI. MKI, which had signed the only workout document containing an arbitration agreement, submitted to arbitration, but the Kaplans, who had not signed that document, filed objections with the panel. The Kaplans argued that their disagreement with First Options not was arbitrable. After deciding that they had the power to rule on the dispute's merits, the arbitrators ruled in First Options' favor. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals reversed the award, finding that the dispute was not arbitrable. The appellate court concluded that courts should independently decide whether an arbitration panel has jurisdiction over a dispute, and that it would apply ordinary standards of review when considering the District Court's denial of a motion to vacate the arbitration award.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Is the arbitrability of disputes subject to independent review by the courts? Should courts of appeals apply an "abuse of discretion" standard when reviewing district court upholding arbitration awards?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>94-560_19950322-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_560/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_560/argument/94-560_19950322-argument.mp3" length="13372322" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2000 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Larketta Randolph financed the purchase of a mobile home through Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama. Randolph's financing agreement with Green Tree required that she buy insurance against default and provided that disputes under the contract would be resolved by binding arbitration. Randolph sued Green Tree, alleging that it violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by failing to disclose the insurance requirement as a finance charge and that it violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by requiring her to arbitrate her statutory causes of action. The District Court granted Green Tree's motion to compel arbitration and denied her request for reconsideration, which stated that she lacked the resources to arbitrate and, therefore, would have to forgo her claims. The Court of Appeals, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which allows appeals from "a final decision with respect to an arbitration that is subject to this title," held that it had jurisdiction. Ultimately, the court concluded that because the agreement was silent with respect to payment of arbitration expenses, it was unenforceable.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Is an order compelling arbitration a "final decision with respect to an arbitration" within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act? Is an arbitration agreement that does not mention arbitration costs and fees unenforceable because it fails to protect a party from potentially expensive arbitration costs?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>99-1235_20001003-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_1235/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_1235/argument/99-1235_20001003-argument.mp3" length="14247505" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;In an attempt to solve a contract dispute, Lynn and Burt Bazzle filed suit against Green Tree Financial Corporation. After they filed the suit, the Bazzles learned that other Green Tree customers were dealing with the same sort of dispute. As a result, they asked for and received permission to file a class action suit. However, Green Tree contracts had a clause requiring that any contract disputes be settled by an arbitrator. Green Tree asked the court to revoke the class certification because the Federal Arbitration Act, it argued, did not permit class-wide arbitration. Instead, the arbitration would have to be conducted on a case-by-case basis. The South Carolina Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that, unless specifically banned in the contract, class-wide arbitration could be permitted by the courts.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Does the Federal Arbitration Act permit class-wide arbitration hearings?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>02-634_20030422-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_634/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_634/argument/02-634_20030422-argument.mp3" length="14434138" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2002 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;According to Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.'s standard client agreement, Karen Howsam chose to arbitrate her dispute with the company before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). NASD's Code of Arbitration Procedure section 10304 states that no dispute "shall be eligible for submission...where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the dispute." Dean Witter filed suit, asking the Federal District Court to declare the dispute ineligible for arbitration because it was more than six years old. The court dismissed the action, stating that the NASD arbitrator should interpret and apply the NASD rule. In reversing, the Court of Appeals found that the rule's application presented a question of the underlying dispute's arbitrability and the presumption is that a court will ordinarily decide an arbitrability question.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Should a federal district court decide whether to interpret and apply the National Association of Securities Dealers' time-limit rule regarding disputes where six years have elapsed since the event that gives rise to the dispute?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>01-800_20021009-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_800/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_800/argument/01-800_20021009-argument.mp3" length="15011342" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1985 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>83-1569_19850318-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_1569/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_1569/argument/83-1569_19850318-argument.mp3" length="14952624" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Shearson/American Express Inc. v. Mcmahon - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 1987 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>86-44_19870303-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_86_44/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_86_44/argument/86-44_19870303-argument.mp3" length="14713311" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Southland Corp. v. Keating - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 1983 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>82-500_19831004-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_500/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_500/argument/82-500_19831004-argument.mp3" length="15562224" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Products Co. - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 1985 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>84-497_19850326-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_84_497/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_84_497/argument/84-497_19850326-argument.mp3" length="14379236" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
 </channel>
</rss>
