Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
| Moses Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 2, 1982 Decided February 23, 1983 |
|
| Full case name | Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. |
| Citations | 460 U.S. 1 (more)
103 S Ct. 927
|
| Prior history | 80 CvS. 6787, North Carolina General Court of Justice, Greensboro Division; 656 F.2d 933, CA4 |
| Holding | |
| District Court stay of petition seeking to compel arbitration pending resolution of action in state court was properly appealable as final since its sole purpose and effect were the surrender of jurisdiction to a state court; stay itself was improper abstention since Colorado River exceptional circumstances did not apply. Fourth Circuit affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens |
| Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, O'Connor |
| Laws applied | |
|
Federal Arbitration Act, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |
|
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983), commonly cited as Moses Cone or Cone Hospital, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning civil procedure, specifically the abstention doctrine, as it applies to enforcing an arbitration clause in a diversity case. By a 6–3 margin, the justices resolved a complicated construction dispute by ruling that a North Carolina hospital had to arbitrate a claim against the Alabama-based company it had hired to build a new wing, even though it meant that it could not consolidate it with ongoing litigation it had brought in state court against the contractor and architect.
Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority that a district court's stay of the contractor's petition to compel arbitration was an "abuse of discretion". It had not properly applied the Court's prior ruling in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States. Since the net effect of the stay was to force the contractor to litigate in state court, Mercury's appeal to the Fourth Circuit was proper, and the appeals court properly reversed the stay. Since the contract was covered by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the hospital had no way to avoid arbitration, which the contractor could not be assured of getting under existing state law.
...
Wikipedia