U.S. Code » Title 9 » Chapter CHAPTER 3— INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

9 U.S.C. § 307

Application

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 9 CasesGoogle Scholar

Chapter 1 applies to actions and proceedings brought under this chapter to the extent chapter 1 is not in conflict with this chapter or the Inter-American 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 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: Rizalyn Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rizalyn Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 208 (the Convention Act residual provision); 9 U.S.C. § 307 (the Inter-American Act residual provision).”
RZS Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Petroleos S.A., 598 F. Supp. 2d 762 (E.D. Va. 2009). · cites it 3× “9 U.S.C. § 307 . The arbitral award presently before the Court is an international award subject to the provisions of the Inter-American Convention because it is non-domestic in nature, and because both Venezuela and the United States are signatories of the Inter-American…”
Martinez v. Colombian Emeralds, Inc., 51 V.I. 174 (2009). “9 USCA § 307. The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award of June 10,1958, shall be enforced in United States Courts in accordance with this chapter.”
Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC v. Banco De Seguros Del Estado, 771 F.3d 980 (7th Cir. 2014). “§ 302 , which incorporates much of the New York Convention, and 9 U.S.C. § 307 , which provides for residual application of chapter 1 in its entirety “to actions and proceedings brought under this chapter to the extent chapter 1 is not in conflict” with chapter 3 or the Panama…”
Banco De Seguros Del Estado v. Mut. Marine Offices, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 2× “Any party to the arbitration may apply to the district court for an order confirming an arbitral award “[w]ithin three years after an arbitral award falling under the Convention is made.”
Am. Life Ins. v. Parra, 25 F. Supp. 2d 467 (D. Del. 1998). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 307 , defendants argue, the convention’s provisions supersede conflicting provisions of the FAA’s chapter 1.”
Sanluis Developments, L.L.C. v. CCP Sanluis, L.L.C., 498 F. Supp. 2d 699 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). · cites it 2× “3d at 45 (citing 9 U.S.C. § 307 ). Accordingly, a court applying the Panama Convention may vacate an arbitration award based on the grounds recognized under the FAA.”
Banco De Seguros Del Estado v. Mut. Marine Offices, Inc., 257 F. Supp. 2d 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “3d at 45 (citing 9 U.S.C. § 307 ). Accordingly, a court applying the Inter-American Convention may vacate an arbitration award based on the grounds recognized under the FAA.”
Productos Mercantiles E Industriales, S.A. v. Faberge USA, Inc., 23 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1994). “9 U.S.C. § 307 (Supp. IV 1992). The FAA grants the courts authority to modify awards “[w]here there was an evident material miscalculation of figures .”
Wilson v. Carnival Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2022). “9 U.S.C. § 307 . The Petitioner suggests his vacatur action is cognizable under Section 307 because Chapter 1 “plainly permits actions to vacate arbitral awards, while Chapters 2 and 3 are silent[.”
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.