holding that, under an arbitration clause which read, “any controversy . . . arising under this Agreement,” no “provision of the contract [was] wholly outside of the arbitration provision”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, under an arbitration clause which read, “any controversy . . . arising under this Agreement,” no “provision of the contract [was] wholly outside of the arbitration provision”
- finding that prior ruling does not relieve a district court of its obligation to present the Court of Appeals with what it believes to be a correct judgment
- while defendants assumed the risk that a judgment in their favor would not protect them from subsequent suits by other potential class members, they retained the “not inconse *151 quential protection of stare decisis regarding claims of unnamed plaintiffs”
- by moving for summary judgment prior to the class determination and the sending out of class notice, the defendants “assumed the risk that a judgment in their favor would not protect them from subsequent suits by other potential class members.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported overruled in part by City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) — not on the Supreme Court's list
425 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 1726, 48 L.Ed.2d 195 (1976), overruled in part by Dague, supra,
The opinion
This record has no opinion text. It is a disposition such as a denial of certiorari, kept so the case can be found by name and citation.