# Wilko v. Swan

> Supreme Court of the United States · December 7, 1953 · 346 U.S. 427

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421007

## Case

- **Full name:** WILKO v. SWAN Et Al., Doing Business as HAYDEN, STONE & CO., Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** December 7, 1953
- **Citations:** 346 U.S. 427; 74 S. Ct. 182; 98 L. Ed. 2d 168; 98 L. Ed. 168; 1953 U.S. LEXIS 2673
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jackson
- **Judges:** Reed, Jackson, Frankfurter, Min-Ton
- **Cited by:** 1,214 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989).
- Negative treatments: 9
- Distinguished by: 3
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421007

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that Hall Street overruled “manifest disregard of the law” as an independent basis for vacatur
- recognizing that, even when the evidence is probative, the "overriding policy of excluding such evidence ... is the practical experience that its disallowance tends to prevent confusion of issues, unfair surprise and undue prejudice"
- noting that an Arbitrators’ award “may be made without explanation of their reasons 7 and without a complete record of their proceedings”
- holding that the arbitration of securities claims was forbidden by the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts in § 22 of the 1933 Act

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Jackson,
concurring.
I agree with the Court’s opinion insofar as it construes the Securities Act to prohibit waiver of a judicial remedy in favor of arbitration by agreement made before any controversy arose. I think thereafter the parties could agree upon arbitration. However, I find it unnec *439 essary in this case, where there has not been and could not be any arbitration, to decide that the Arbitration Act precludes any judicial remedy for the arbitrators’ error of interpretation of a relevant statute.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421007. Public record. Not legal advice.