# Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 25, 2008 · 552 U.S. 576

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435250

## Case

- **Full name:** Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 25, 2008
- **Citations:** 552 U.S. 576; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 121; 2008 A.M.C. 1058; 76 U.S.L.W. 4168; 128 S. Ct. 1396; 170 L. Ed. 2d 254; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 2911
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Breyer
- **Judges:** Souter, Stevens, Breyer
- **Cited by:** 1,566 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Sharp v. Downey, 197 Md. App. 123 (2010).
- Negative treatments: 6
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435250

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the FAA “substantiat[es] a national policy favoring arbitration’s essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway” and explaining that “[aJny other reading opens the door to the full-bore legal and evidentiary appeals that can render informal arbitration me…
- holding that sections 10 and 11 of the FAA provide exclusive grounds for the review under the statute and regardless of the parties’ agreement to the contrary, district courts must review an arbitrator’s findings of fact and conclusions of law under the highly deferential stan…
- holding that “every circuit that has considered the question ... [has] held that the mere inclusion of a choice-of-law clause within the arbitration agreement is insufficient to indicate the parties’ intent to contract for the application of state law concerning judicial revie…
- holding that 9 U.S.C. §§10 and 11 provide the exclusive grounds upon which an arbitration award may be vacated or modified, and that the parties may not agree to expand the scope of judicial review to allow vacatur or modification based on the arbitrator’s legal error
- holding that §§ 10 and 11 of the FAA specify the exclusive grounds for vacating, modifying, or correcting an arbitration award

## Opinion text

Justice Breyer,
dissenting.
The question presented in this case is whether “the Federal Arbitration Act . . . precludes a federal court from enforcing” an arbitration agreement that gives the court the power to set aside an arbitration award that embodies an arbitrator’s mistake about the law. Pet. for Cert. i. Like the majority and Justice Stevens, and primarily for the reasons they set forth, I believe that the Act does not preclude enforcement of such an agreement. See ante, at 590 (opinion of the Court) (The Act “is not the only way into court for parties wanting review of arbitration awards”); ante, at 595 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (The Act is a “shield meant to protect parties from hostile courts, not a sword with which to cut down parties’ 'valid, irrevocable and enforceable’ agreements to arbitrate their disputes subject to judicial review for errors of law”).
. At the same time, I see no need to send the case back for further judicial decisionmaking. The agreement here was entered into with the consent of the parties and the approval of the District Court. Aside from the Federal Arbitration Act itself, 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., respondent below pointed to no statute, rule, or other relevant public policy that the agreement might violate. The Court has now rejected its argument that the agreement violates the Act, and I would simply remand the case with instructions that the Court of Appeals affirm the District Court’s judgment enforcing the arbitrator’s final award.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435250. Public record. Not legal advice.