# 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/9421226

## 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:** Dissent by Burton
- **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/9421226

## 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 Burton,
dissenting.
Whether or not § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act is applicable to this contract, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.
Assuming the validity of the arbitration clause in the New York contract here involved, I regard the procedure *213 which it prescribes as a permissible “form of trial.” See Murray Oil Products Co. v. Mitsui & Co., 146 F. 2d 381 . Accordingly, the United States District Court for the District of Vermont may stay its own proceedings to await completion of the arbitration proceedings, although a state court of Vermont would not do likewise. I do not interpret Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 , or Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99 , as requiring the contrary.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421226. Public record. Not legal advice.