MASTROBUONO ET AL.

v.

SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1995)
  …rmation of the award against them. 19 F. 3d 1503 (1994). We granted certiorari to consider two questions regarding the standards that the Court of Appeals used to review the determination that the Kaplans’ dispute with First Options was arbitrable. 513 U. S. 1040 (1994). First, the Court of Appeals said that courts “should independently decide whether an arbitration panel has jurisdiction over the merits of any particular dispute.” 19 F. 3d, at 1509 (emphasis added). First Options asked us to decide whethe…
• Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1995)
  …ly dissent. The Seventh Circuit adopted a de novo standard of review of the arbitrators’ decision. Although we have not yet decided what standard of review to apply in cases of this sort, see First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, cert. granted, 513 U. S. 1040 (1994), petitioners waived the argument that a deferential standard was appropriate. Petitioners did not raise the argument in their petition for certiorari or in their opening brief. While the standard of review may be an antecedent question, see U…
• Brown v. Williams, 522 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1997)
  …cketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1. Petitioner has a history of abusing this Court’s certiorari process. In 1994, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny petitioner informa pauperis status. Brown v. Brown, 513 U. S. 1040 (1994). Undeterred by this action, petitioner has continued filing frivolous petitions with this Court. To date, petitioner has filed eight petitions over the last eight years, each of which has been denied without recorded dissent. In the instant p…