Cortez BYRD Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Company, Etc. (529 U.S. 193)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 21, 2000 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 529 U.S. 193 · 120 S. Ct. 1331
- Decided
- March 21, 2000
- Term
- October Term 1999
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. This case raises the issue whether the venue provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9 U. S. C. §§9-11, are restrictive, allowing a motion to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award to be brought only in the district in which the award was made, or are permissive, permitting such a motion either where the award was made or in any district proper under the general venue statute. We hold the FAA provisions permissive. I Petitioner Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc., and respondent Bill Harbert Construction Company agreed that Harbert would build a wood chip mill for Cortez Byrd in Brookhaven, Mississippi. One of the terms was that “[ajll claims or disputes between the Contractor and the Owner arising out [of] or relating to the Contract, or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association currently in effect unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.” App. 52. The agreement went on to provide that “[t]he award rendered by the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be final, and judgement may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof,” ibid.; that the agreement to arbitrate “shall be specifically enforceable under applicable law in any court having jurisdiction…
Excerpt of a 19,857-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.