SOLORIO

v.

UNITED STATES; CALIFORNIA V. ROONEY; GREER, WARDEN V. MILLER; RANKIN ET AL. V. MCPHERSON; SHEARSON/AMERICAN EXPRESS INC. ET AL. V. MCMAHON ET AL.; KOCZAK ET AL. V. DIXON ET AL.; MARGOLES V. JOHNS ET AL.; ANDERSON V. OREGON STATE BAR ET AL.; BOOTH V. MARYLAND; BURGER V. KEMP, WARDEN; WILLIAMS V. LOUISIANA

Citator

Cited By

• Robbins v. DAY, 954 F.2d 679 (11th Cir. 1992)
  …ll review the granting of a motion to vacate de novo. In Raiford, this court recognized a national policy favoring arbitration. See also Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 2337, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 reh. den., 483 U.S. 1056, 108 S.Ct. 31, 97 L.Ed.2d 819 (1987) (“The Arbitration Act thus establishes a federal policy favoring arbitration, requiring that we rigorously enforce agreements to arbitrate.”). Our circuit has also noted that “[t]he purpose of the Federal Arbitr…
• Roby v. Corp. OF Lloyd's, 996 F.2d 1353 (2d Cir. 1993)
  …een squarely overruled. See Rodriguez de Quijos v. Shearson/American Express, 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 1921, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989); see also Shearson/American Express v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 96 L.Ed.2d 185, reh’g denied, 483 U.S. 1056, 108 S.Ct. 31, 97 L.Ed.2d 819 (1987) (asserting that the assumptions underlying Wilko are no longer valid). Wilko held that an agreement to arbitrate future controversies was void under the antiwaiver provision of the Securities Act. We do not doubt…
• Daniels v. Brennan, 887 F.2d 783 (7th Cir. 1989)
  …create a substantial danger that the underlying judgment was unjust.” 3 Penny Theater Corp., 812 F. 2d at 340 (quoting Margoles v. Johns, 798 F. 2d 1069, 1073 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 905, 107 S.Ct. 2482, 96 L.Ed.2d 374, reh’g denied, 483 U.S. 1056, 108 S.Ct. 31, 97 L.Ed.2d 820 (1987)). Further, an abuse of discretion under Rule 60(b) is shown only in those cases in which “no reasonable person could agree with the district court’s decision.” In other words, the district court’s Rule 60(b) deci…