# Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 16, 1956 · 350 U.S. 198

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421225

## Case

- **Full name:** Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Company of America, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 16, 1956
- **Citations:** 350 U.S. 198; 76 S. Ct. 273; 100 L. Ed. 2d 199; 100 L. Ed. 199; 1956 U.S. LEXIS 1487
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harlan
- **Judges:** Burton, Douglas, Frankfurter, Harlan
- **Cited by:** 694 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/9421225

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a “resultant discrimination” would result if parties suing on a state court cause of action in federal court were required to arbitrate a claim that would not be so required if the state cause of action were litigated in state court.
- affirming district court’s use of forty-five-year-old state supreme court precedent when “there appear[ed] to be no 8 confusion in [state] decisions, no developing line of authorities that casts a shadow over the established ones, no dicta, doubts or ambiguities in the opinion…
- affirming district court’s use of forty-five-year-old state supreme court precedent when “there appeared] to be no confusion in [state] decisions, no developing line of authorities that casts a shadow over the established ones, no dicta, doubts or ambiguities in the opinions o…
- describing commercial arbitration proceedings in 1956 and concluding that “[a]rbitrators do not have the benefit of judicial instruction on the law; they need not give their reasons for their results; the record of their proceedings is not as complete as it is in a court trial…
- holding that the language of the FAA makes clear that Congress chose certain “kind[s] of agreement[s]” to be brought under federal regulation and exempted others

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Harlan,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the Court except insofar as it undertakes to review and affirm the District Court’s interpretation of Vermont law. I agree with Mr. Justice Frankfurter that the review of questions of state law should ordinarily be left to the Courts of Appeals and would remand the case to the Court of Appeals for that purpose.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421225. Public record. Not legal advice.