| dbo:abstract
|
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning contract law and arbitration. The case arose from a class action filed in Florida against a payday lender alleging the loan agreements the plaintiffs had signed were unenforceable because they essentially charged a higher interest rate than that permitted under Florida law. The lending agreements called for all disputes between the borrower and lender to be settled in arbitration. The original plaintiffs argued that the entire contract, including the arbitration clause, was invalid because it violated the law. When it was appealed to the High Court, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a majority of seven that the Federal Arbitration Act, as previously interpreted by the Court, settled a question that had long been debated by legal scholars and lower-court judges. The opinion distinguished void and voidable contracts, requiring that in the latter an arbitrator rule on all issues including the legality of the contract unless the arbitration clause was itself challenged. The only dissenter was Clarence Thomas, who restated his belief that the Arbitration Act does not supersede state law. (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 24974 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-11-29 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (en)
|
| dbp:courtlistener
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-02-21 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
| |
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc., petitioner v. John Cardegna et al. (en)
|
| dbp:googlescholar
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- Where contract contains arbitration clause, arbitrator alone can rule on legality of contract under state law in first instance unless clause itself is challenged, distinguishing between void and voidable. Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
|
- Federal Arbitration Act, (en)
|
| dbp:litigants
|
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna (en)
|
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:notparticipating
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:subsequent
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning contract law and arbitration. The case arose from a class action filed in Florida against a payday lender alleging the loan agreements the plaintiffs had signed were unenforceable because they essentially charged a higher interest rate than that permitted under Florida law. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc.,petitionerv. John Cardegna et al. (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
