Shearson/American Express v. McMahon
United States Supreme Court
482 U.S. 220, 107 S. Ct. 2332, 96 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1987)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Eugene and Julia McMahon (plaintiffs) were customers of Shearson/American Express, Inc. (Shearson) (defendant), a brokerage firm registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Julia signed two customer agreements, which provided for arbitration of any controversy related to the McMahons’ accounts with Shearson. The provision stated that any controversy would be settled through arbitration unless unenforceable by federal or state law. When disputes arose over the McMahons’ accounts, the couple filed suit in federal district court, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act (Exchange Act), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, and several state-law provisions. Under the customer agreements, Shearson moved to compel arbitration of the McMahons’ claims by invoking the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The district court granted the motion as to the state-law provisions but found that the Exchange Act and the RICO Act claims were not arbitrable. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed as to the state-law claims and the RICO Act claims but reversed as to the Exchange Act claims. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Blackmun, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.
