Case Citator › Vaden v. Discover Bank

Vaden v. Discover Bank

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
556 U.S. 49
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
52 of 52
Citing cases (total)
52
Treatment dates
2015–2022
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Vaden v. Discover Bank remains the rule for federal jurisdiction over petitions to compel arbitration under FAA § 4, but later courts have declined to extend its approach to other questions. The two confirmed limits are listed below.
More on how this was screened

All 52 flagged citations have been read.

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.

52 later cases cite Vaden v. Discover Bank; 52 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 Vaden v. Discover Bank?

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

Limited

  • The district court declined to extend Vaden's approach to deciding diversity jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration.

    Carmax Auto Superstores California LLC v. Hernandez · C.D. California · filed

    In sum, for the reasons stated, the court declines to extend the limited approval of the “look-through” approach announced in Vaden to the question of diversity jurisdiction in this case.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court declined to extend Vaden's look-through approach to requests to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under FAA §§ 9 and 10.

    Badgerow v. Walters · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The question presented here is whether that same “look-through” approach to jurisdiction applies to requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under the FAA’s Sections 9 and 10. We hold it does not. Those sections lack Section 4’s distinctive language directing a look-through, on which Vaden rested.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Vaden v. Discover Bank 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