9 U.S.C. § 302
Incorporation by reference
Sections 202, 203, 204, 205, and 207 of this title shall apply to this chapter as if specifically set forth herein, except that for the purposes of this chapter “the Convention” shall mean the Inter-American Convention.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Repub. of Ecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 376 F. Supp. 2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
Repub. of Ecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 376 F. Supp. 2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “Defendants initially removed the action pursuant to the same claimed sources of jurisdiction, as well as two others: federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, specifically 9 U.S.C. § 302 , and general…”
Rizalyn Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005). “” 9 U.S.C. § 302 . Most relevant for the instant case is the reference in section 202 of the Convention Act to section 2 of the FAA.”
Tecnicas Reunidas De Talara S.A.C. v. SSK Ingenieria Y Construccion S.A.C., 40 F.4th 1339 (11th Cir. 2022). “3d at 1441 (explaining that an arbitration not entirely between citizens of the United States is reviewed under section 202 of the Arbitration Act); 9 U.S.C. § 302 (incorporating sections 202, 203, 204, 205, and 207 of the Arbitration Act to apply to arbitrations USCA11 Case:…”
Sanluis Developments, L.L.C. v. CCP Sanluis, L.L.C., 556 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “See 9 U.S.C. § 302 (2000) (“Sections 202, 203, 204, 205, and 207 of this title [ 9 U.”
Goldgroup Resources v. Dynaresource De Mexico, 994 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2021). “9 U.S.C. § 302 . Because “[t]here is no substantive difference” between the two conventions and the defenses under each are the same, Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S.”
TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “However, codification of the Panama Convention incorporates by reference the relevant provisions of the New York Convention (see 9 U.S.C. § 302 ), making discussion of the Panama Convention unnecessary.”
Nicor Int'l Corp. v. El Paso Corp., 292 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2003). “9 U.S.C. § 302 (incorporating by reference sections 202, 203, 204, 205, and 207 of the FAA).”
RZS Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Petroleos S.A., 598 F. Supp. 2d 762 (E.D. Va. 2009). “” 9 U.S.C. § 302 (incorporating 9 U.S.C. § 207 ); see also Employers Ins.”
Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Banco De Seguros Del Estado, 199 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 1999). “See 9 U.S.C. § 302 (incorporating 9 U.S.C. §§ 202-205 , 207); see also Jain v.”
Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC v. Banco De Seguros Del Estado, 771 F.3d 980 (7th Cir. 2014). “There are two: 9 U.S.C. § 302 , which incorporates much of the New York Convention, and 9 U.”
Freaner v. Valle, 966 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (S.D. Cal. 2013). “§ 205 , which is incorporated by reference in cases falling under the Panama Convention by 9 U.S.C. § 302 . (Order, Nov. 17, 2011, ECF No.”
Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. PEMEX-Exploración y Producción, 962 F. Supp. 2d 642 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “9 U.S.C. §§ 302 , 207. If the court determines it has jurisdiction, that court “shall confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award specified in the said Convention.”
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.