Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983), commonly cited as Moses Cone or Cone Hospital, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning civil procedure, specifically the abstention doctrine, as it applies to enforcing an arbitration clause in a diversity case. By a 6–3 margin, the justices resolved a complicated construction dispute by ruling that a North Carolina hospital had to arbitrate a claim against the Alabama-based company it had hired to build a new wing, even though it meant that it could not consolidate it with ongoing litigation it had brought in state court against the contractor and architect.
Wikipage redirect
460 U.S. 1Abstention doctrineArbitration case law in the United StatesColorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesConsumer arbitrationDean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdFederal Arbitration ActList of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger CourtMitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Co.Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. CorpMoses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp.Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction CorporationMoses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v Mercury Construction Corp.Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahonSouthland Corp. v. KeatingWilko v. Swan
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983), commonly cited as Moses Cone or Cone Hospital, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning civil procedure, specifically the abstention doctrine, as it applies to enforcing an arbitration clause in a diversity case. By a 6–3 margin, the justices resolved a complicated construction dispute by ruling that a North Carolina hospital had to arbitrate a claim against the Alabama-based company it had hired to build a new wing, even though it meant that it could not consolidate it with ongoing litigation it had brought in state court against the contractor and architect.
has abstract
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospita ...... o expand its scope since then.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
28,757,216
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
1,018,448,595
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.,
@en
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
Rehnquist
@en
fullname
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp.
@en
Holding
District Court stay of petitio ...... pply. Fourth Circuit affirmed.
@en
italic title
force
@en
JoinDissent
Burger, O'Connor
@en
JoinMajority
White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
@en
justia
Litigants
Mercury Constr. Corp.
@en
Moses Cone Mem. Hosp. v.
@en
majority
Brennan
@en
oyez
ParallelCitations
Prior
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospita ...... the contractor and architect.
@en
label
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
@en
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospitalv. Mercury Constr. Corp.
@en