9 U.S.C. § 208
Application
Chapter 1 applies to actions and proceedings brought under this chapter to the extent that chapter is not in conflict with this chapter or the Convention as ratified by the United States. This chapter applies to the extent that this chapter is not in conflict with chapter 4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 199
cases (49 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Ge Energy Power Conversion Fr. Sas, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 1637 (2020).
Ge Energy Power Conversion Fr. Sas, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 1637 (2020). “” 9 U. S. C. §208 . Pp. 3–6. (b) The application of familiar tools of treaty interpretation estab- lishes that the state-law equitable estoppel doctrines permitted under Chapter 1 do not “conflict with .”
Ario v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds, 618 F.3d 277 (3rd Cir. 2010). “This reasoning is also consistent with 9 U.S.C. § 208 , also part of the Convention's implementing statute, in which Congress explicitly provided for the application of the domestic FAA to the extent that it did not conflict with the Convention.”
Freudensprung v. Offshore Technical Servs., Inc., 379 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2004). “When the Convention Act governs the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration agreement or award, however, the FAA applies only “to the extent that [the FAA] is not in conflict with [the Convention Act] or the Convention as ratified by the United States.”
Rogers v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, 547 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2008). “" 9 U.S.C. § 208 . C. Analysis 1. The Exemption Clause of the FAA We must decide whether the exemption clause in Section 1 of the FAA applies to arbitration agreements that would, in the absence of the exemption clause, be covered by the Convention Act.”
Dapuzzo v. Globalvest Mgmt. Co., L.P., 263 F. Supp. 2d 714 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “”); see 9 U.S.C. § 208 (prescribing that FAA Chapter 1 is incorporated into Chapter 2 to the extent not in conflict with the Convention); see also Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons, W.”
Rizalyn Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005). “See 9 U.S.C. § 208 (the Convention Act residual provision); 9 U.”
Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2002). “1998); see also 9 U.S.C. § 208 (providing that the FAA applies to arbitration clauses under the Convention except to the extent that the FAA conflicts with the Convention or its implementing legislation).”
Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011). “" 9 U.S.C. § 208 . Chapter 1, in turn, provides that arbitration agreements are enforceable "save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
Dahiya v. Talmidge Int'l, Ltd., 371 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2004). “Section 2 of the FAA, enacted by Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause and incorporated by the Convention in 9 U.S.C. § 208 , “is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural…”
Martinez v. Colombian Emeralds, Inc., 51 V.I. 174 (2009). “Title 9 U.S.C. § 208 provides that “Chapter 1 applies to actions and proceedings brought under this chapter to the extent that chapter is not in conflict with this chapter or the Convention as ratified by the United States.”
Acosta v. Master Maint. & Constr. Inc., 452 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2006). “The unambiguous policy in favor of recognition of arbitration agreements falling under the Convention is reflected in provisions incorporating by reference the *377 Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 208 , 3 and independently and explicitly empowering courts to compel…”
Biotronik Mess-Und Therapiegeraete GmbH & Co. v. Medford Med. Instrument Co., 415 F. Supp. 133 (D.N.J. 1976). “9 U.S.C. § 208 . 10 Medford’s Defenses, Part I Medford’s first two defenses consist of alternative legal theories, both of which are based upon Biotronik’s failure to offer any evidence concerning the Third Agreement to the arbitration panel.”
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.