This HTML5 document contains 159 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
n14https://scholar.google.com/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n20http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n19https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/546/
n10https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/145683/buckeye-check-cashing-inc-v-cardegna/
n25https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
umbel-rchttp://umbel.org/umbel/rc/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n5https://www.leagle.com/decision/
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n12https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/440/
n17http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n9https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Buckeye_Check_Cashing,_Inc._v._Cardegna
rdf:type
yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesOfTheRobertsCourt owl:Thing yago:Event100029378 dbo:LegalCase yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity dbo:UnitOfWork umbel-rc:Event dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase yago:Happening107283608 wikidata:Q2334719 yago:Abstraction100002137 dbo:Case yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:Case107308889 yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases
rdfs:label
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
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.
foaf:name
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc.,petitionerv. John Cardegna et al.
foaf:depiction
n17:Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_arbitration_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:2006_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_class_action_case_law dbc:United_States_banking_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
19137022
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1123800599
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_546 dbr:Arbitration_in_the_United_States dbc:United_States_banking_case_law dbr:Raoul_G._Cantero,_III dbr:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit dbr:Louis_D._Brandeis_School_of_Law dbr:Ab_initio dbr:Rollover_(finance) dbr:Certiorari dbr:Forgery dbr:Subsidiary dbr:Samuel_Alito dbr:Patent dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Brief_(law) dbr:Antonin_Scalia dbr:Anthony_Kennedy dbr:Fla._Dist._Ct._App. dbr:White_&_Case dbr:Plaintiffs dbr:Usury dbr:Banking_in_the_United_States dbr:Florida dbr:Marquette_Nat._Bank_of_Minneapolis_v._First_of_Omaha_Service_Corp. dbr:So._2d dbr:Florida_Fourth_District_Court_of_Appeal dbr:Plaintiff dbr:Law_clerk dbr:Credit_card dbr:Paycheck dbr:Preston_v._Ferrer dbr:9-1-1 dbr:Switchboard_operator dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Severability dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:United_States_arbitration_case_law dbr:Federal_Arbitration_Act dbr:University_of_Kansas_School_of_Law dbr:Predatory_lending dbr:Interest_rate n20:Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg dbr:Palm_Beach_County,_Florida dbr:Oral_argument dbr:Void_(law) dbr:Payday_lending dbr:Payday_loans dbr:Talent_agent dbr:Judge_Alex dbr:Contract dbr:Alternative_dispute_resolution dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Sandra_Day_O'Connor dbr:Unconscionability dbc:2006_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Settlement_(law) dbr:California dbr:Dublin,_Ohio dbr:Voidable dbr:Capacity_(law) dbr:Title_loan dbr:Conflict_of_interest dbr:Prima_Paint_Corp._v._Flood_&_Conklin_Mfg._Co. dbc:United_States_class_action_case_law dbr:John_Roberts dbr:University_of_Texas_School_of_Law dbr:Checksmart dbr:Amicus_curiae dbr:Alex_Ferrer dbr:Arbitration dbr:University_of_Louisville dbr:National_Banking_Act dbr:Southland_Corp._v._Keating dbr:Clarence_Thomas dbr:Petitioner dbr:John_Paul_Stevens dbr:Alabama_Supreme_Court dbr:Kirkland_&_Ellis dbr:Interest dbr:U.S._LEXIS dbr:Arbitration_clause dbr:Class_action dbr:Florida_Supreme_Court
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n5:20021052824so2d22811016 n5:20051754894so2d86011225 n5:20061540930so2d61021533 n10: n9:04-1264 n14:scholar_case%3Fcase=16108030830731717705 n19:440.html n12:
owl:sameAs
yago-res:Buckeye_Check_Cashing,_Inc._v._Cardegna freebase:m.04j9z4v n25:4ciSb wikidata:Q4983065
dbp:subsequent
172800.0
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Quote dbt:UnitedStatesCode dbt:Ussc dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Reflist
dbo:thumbnail
n17:Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg?width=300
dbp:dissent
Thomas
dbp:joinmajority
Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
dbp:lawsapplied
Federal Arbitration Act,
dbp:oyez
n9:04-1264
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:prior
172800.0
dbp:uspage
440
dbp:usvol
546
dbp:arguedate
0001-11-29
dbp:argueyear
2005
dbp:case
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440
dbp:courtlistener
n10:
dbp:decidedate
0001-02-21
dbp:decideyear
2006
dbp:findlaw
n19:440.html
dbp:fullname
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc., petitioner v. John Cardegna et al.
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
dbp:justia
n12:
dbp:litigants
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
dbp:majority
Scalia
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.
dbp:googlescholar
n14:scholar_case%3Fcase=16108030830731717705
dbp:notparticipating
Alito
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Buckeye_Check_Cashing,_Inc._v._Cardegna?oldid=1123800599&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
24974
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Buckeye_Check_Cashing,_Inc._v._Cardegna