PaineWebber Inc. v. Hartmann
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. displaced Hartmann's holding that a court decides whether a securities arbitration claim exceeds the forum's six-year eligibility limit; the Third Circuit recognized this in Trippe Manufacturing Co. v. Niles Audio Corp. Hartmann's rules on the basic judicial inquiry into an arbitration agreement and on irreparable harm continue to be cited. The 3 confirmed treatments are listed below.
32 later cases cite PaineWebber Inc. v. Hartmann; 32 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 PaineWebber Inc. v. Hartmann?
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
Overruled in Part
-
The Supreme Court held that arbitrators ordinarily decide whether the securities arbitration forum's six-year time limit bars a claim, displacing Hartmann's contrary holding on that issue.
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
This case focuses upon an arbitration rule of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The rule states that no dispute “shall be eligible for submission to arbitration . . . where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the . . . dispute.” NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure §10304 (1984) (NASD Code or Code). We must decide whether a court or an NASD arbitrator should apply the rule to the underlying controversy. We conclude that the matter is for the arbitrator.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to Follow
-
The Florida court rejected Hartmann's view that judges decide whether the securities arbitration rule's six-year limit bars a claim.
Wylie v. Investment Management and Research Inc. · Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal · filed
Arrayed against that majority are the Third, Sixth and Seventh Circuits. See Paine-Webber Inc. v. Hartmann, 921 F.2d 507 (3rd Cir.1990); Roney & Co. v. Kassab, 981 F.2d 894 (6th Cir.1992); and Edward D. Jones & Co. v. Sorrells, 957 F.2d 509 (7th Cir.1992). ... We thus conclude that NASD Code § 15 is but a procedural bar and is thus for arbitrators to decide.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The District of Minnesota declined Hartmann's presumption of irreparable harm from compelled arbitration and required a showing of injury before granting an injunction.
Valspar Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance · District of Minnesota · filed
In fact, some courts have presumed irreparable harm when a party was compelled to arbitrate an un-arbitrable dispute. See, e.g., Paine-Webber, Inc. v. Hartmann, 921 F.2d 507, 515 (3d Cir.1990), overruled on other grounds by Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002). ... A well-developed body of case law, however, adopts a contrary position. ... In the undersigned’s view, the *733latter cases are more aptly applied here, for two key reasons.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads PaineWebber Inc. v. Hartmann 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