Arbitration award enforcement
Laslo Gross, et ux. v. Smartsky Networks
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Laslo and Susan Gross asked whether state courts may use a contract’s choice-of-law clause to avoid federal rules on deadlines for confirming arbitration awards, grounds for setting awards aside, and injunctions.
- Who it affects
- The order ends the Grosses' request for Supreme Court review without deciding their legal question.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case (denied the petition), so it did not decide that issue.
The case came from the North Carolina Court of Appeals and involved a contract's choice-of-law clause in an arbitration dispute.
Question presented
Whether state courts may use a contractual choice-of-law clause to exempt arbitration confirmation proceedings from the FAA ’ s one-year deadline, its vacatur grounds, and Rule 65(d) ’ s injunction requirements, in violation of the Supremacy Clause.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.