Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T03:04:09.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tai Ping Insurance Co. v. M/V Warschau

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2017

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 460 U.S. 1 (1983).

2 731 F.2d 1141, 1144, 1146.

3 Id. at 1145.

4 Id. at 1146 (quoting 460 U.S. at 20 (emphasis in original)). Cf. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. v. Boeing-Vertol Co., 478 F.Supp. 84 (E.D. La.), aff’d per curiam, 606 F.2d 114 (5th Cir. 1979) (stay of arbitration affirmed).

5 Under this doctrine, where at least one of several causes of action falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, and it is “impracticable if not impossible” to separate it from the other causes of action, the entire dispute must remain within the jurisdiction of the court, despite the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Smoky Greenhaw Cotton Co. v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 720 F.2d 1446, 1448 (5th Cir. 1983). See also Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (1953).

6 731 F.2d at 1144, 1146.