ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. ET AL.

v.

INDEPENDENT INK, INC.

Citator

Cited By

• Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (U.S. 2006)
  …lawful “ ‘could breathe life into a contract that not only violates state law, but also is criminal in nature . . . .’” 894 So. 2d 860, 862 (2005) (quoting Party Yards, Inc. v. Templeton, 751 So. 2d 121, 123 (Fla. App. 2000)). We granted certiorari. 545 U. S. 1127 (2005). II A To overcome judicial resistance to arbitration, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §§ 1-16. Section 2 embodies the national policy favoring arbitration and places arbitration agreements on equal footing wi…
• United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 2006)
  …A substantial right is affected if the appealing party can show that there is a reasonable probability that there would have been a different result had there been no error. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F. 3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1127, 125 S.Ct. 2935, 162 L.Ed.2d 866 (2005). If these three conditions are met, then we may exercise our discretion to notice the forfeited error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.…
• United States v. Trelliny T. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2007)
  …and citations omitted).. “Where errors could have cut either way and uncertainty exists, the burden is the decisive factor in the third prong of the plain error test .... ” United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F. 3d 1291, 1300 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1127, 125 S.Ct. 2935, 162 L.Ed.2d 866 (2005). “Errors do affect a substantial right of a party if they have a ‘substantial influence’ on the outcome of a case or leave ‘grave doubt’ as to whether they affected the outcome of a case.” United States v. Fr…