9 U.S.C. § 1
“Maritime transactions” and “commerce” defined; exceptions to operation of title
“Maritime transactions”, as herein defined, means charter parties, bills of lading of water carriers, agreements relating to wharfage, supplies furnished vessels or repairs to vessels, collisions, or any other matters in foreign commerce which, if the subject of controversy, would be embraced within admiralty jurisdiction; “commerce”, as herein defined, means commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or in any Territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory and any State or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign nation, but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6,467
cases (1,883 in the last 5 years), 1929–2026 · leading case: Bernadean Rittmann v. amazon.com, Inc.
Bernadean Rittmann v. amazon.com, Inc. (2020)
“Agreeing with the First Circuit, the panel held that AmFlex delivery workers were exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act’s enforcement provisions because they were transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce under 9 U.S.C. § 1 when they made “last mile” deliveries of…”
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (2001)
“" 9 U. S. C. § 1 . All but one of the Courts of Appeals which have addressed the issue interpret this provision as exempting contracts of employment of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts, from the FAA's coverage.”
Jaswinder Singh v. Uber Technologies Inc (2019)
“In response to judicial hostility toward these types of contracts, Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16. The FAA places certain arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts by requiring courts to enforce such agreements…”
Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. (2010)
“Held: Imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to au thorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq. Pp. 7–23. (a) The arbitration panel exceeded its powers by imposing its own policy choice instead of…”
New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira (2019)
“9 U. S. C. §1 . And that qualification has sparked these questions: When a contract delegates questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator, must a court leave disputes over the application of §1’s exception for the arbitra- tor to resolve? And does the term “contracts of…”
Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle (2003)
“We granted certiorari to determine whether this holding is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. We are faced at the outset with a problem concerning the contracts' silence.”
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. (1991)
“In response to Gilmer's complaint, Interstate filed in the District Court a motion to compel arbitration of the ADEA claim.”
Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc. (2008)
“[*] The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., provides for expedited judicial review to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitration awards.”
Oto, L. L.C. v. Kho (2019)
“Thereafter, we determined Sonic I 's categorical rule of unconscionability was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA; 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. ). ( Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc.”
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc. (2002)
“Respondent filed a petition under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., to stay the EEOC's suit and compel arbitration, or to dismiss the action.”
Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros, S. A. v. M/V Sky Reefer (1995)
“Our holding that COGSA does not forbid selection of the foreign forum makes it unnecessary to resolve the further question whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp.”
Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries (2022)
“That matters because the FAA, which confers on the federal courts an expansive obligation to enforce arbitration agreements, has an exclusion for contracts with “seamen, railroad employees, [and] any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.