# Alabama Oxygen Co. v. York International, York Division, Borg-Warner Corp.

> Supreme Court of Alabama · June 15, 1984 · 452 So. 2d 860

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7535037

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex parte ALABAMA OXYGEN COMPANY, INC., and the Industrial Development Board of the City of Bessemer. (In re ALABAMA OXYGEN COMPANY, INC., and the Industrial Development Board of the City of Bessemer, Alabama v. YORK INTERNATIONAL, YORK DIVISION, BORG-WARNER CORPORATION)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** June 15, 1984
- **Citations:** 452 So. 2d 860; 1984 Ala. LEXIS 4256
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Embry
- **Judges:** Adams, Almon, Beatty, Embry, Faulkner, Jones, Maddox, Shores, Torbert
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7535037

## Opinion text

EMBRY, Justice
(dissenting):
By its opinion in Southland Corporation v. Keating, 465 U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1260 , 79 L.Ed.2d 668 (1984), the Supreme Court of the United States has discovered that a federal right to arbitrate disputes was created by the Federal Arbitration Act and that the Act was intended by Congress to be enforced in state courts. That statute was enacted by Congress in 1925. Its clear language and legislative history indicate Congress intended that the FAA be applicable only in federal courts. (This statute was enacted prior to the Supreme Court’s decision of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).)
Almost sixty years later, in an unprecedented act of judicial revisionism, the Supreme Court has suddenly bludgeoned the Act to construe it as creating a federal right to be enforced by state courts. That Court has even gone so far as to create specific procedures which states must follow in protecting this newly created right. None of these procedures are set forth by the Act itself.
If the liberties in statutory construction taken by the Supreme Court in Southland hint at the horizons of American jurisprudence, I shudder to think what atrocities might follow. I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7535037. Public record. Not legal advice.