Case Citator › Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
337 U.S. 541
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
340 of 340
Citing cases (total)
10,813
Treatment dates
2014
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. remains controlling on the collateral-order doctrine, subject to a later statutory exception for arbitration orders. All 340 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Ninth Circuit held that 9 U.S.C. § 16(b) bars an immediate appeal from an order staying litigation and compelling arbitration even if the order might otherwise qualify under Cohen. That statutory supersession is listed below; the other opinions did not adversely treat Cohen.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

10,813 later cases cite Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.; 340 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by statute

  • The Ninth Circuit held that 9 U.S.C. § 16(b) forecloses a Cohen collateral-order appeal from an order staying litigation and compelling arbitration.

    Johnson v. Consumerinfo.com, Inc. · Ninth Circuit · filed

    ConArt, Inc. v. Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc., 504 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir.2007) (“Applying the Cohen collateral order doctrine to permit an appeal that § 16(b) specifically prohibits ... would amount to using a judge-made doctrine to erase an unequivocal congressional command.”); ATAC Corp. v. Arthur Treacher’s, Inc., 280 F.3d 1091, 1102 (6th Cir.2002) (“Congress legislated with specificity in the arbitration context, and its statute supersedes the collateral order doctrine.”); Filanto, S.P.A v. Chilewich Int’l Corp., 984 F.2d 58, 60 n. 2 (2d Cir.1993) (“In the absence of certification, however, the barrier to appeal cannot be circumvented by the collateral order doctrine, whether the order compels arbitration or refuses to stay an action pending arbitration.”) (citations omitted). Today we hold the same.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace