Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna
United States Supreme Court
546 U.S. 440 (2006)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
John Cardegna (plaintiff) entered into several deferred-payment transactions with Buckeye Check Cashing (Buckeye) (defendant). Under these transactions, Buckeye gave Cardegna cash in exchange for a personal check plus a financing fee. For each transaction, the parties signed an agreement containing an arbitration clause. Cardegna sued Buckeye, alleging that the agreements violated Florida state consumer-protection laws, making the agreements void ab initio. Buckeye filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the agreements. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that courts are the proper forum for determining whether a contract as a whole is invalid, even if the contract contains an arbitration provision. The court of appeal reversed, finding that because Cardegna did not challenge the arbitration clause itself, the clause is valid, meaning that the issue of the contract’s legality should go to an arbitrator. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
