Talton v. Albaugh
This text of 531 So. 2d 1070 (Talton v. Albaugh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We affirm. See Leicht v. Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc., 848 F.2d 130 (9th Cir.1988).
The options agreement between the parties, under which some 82% of the transactions took place, explicitly states that arbitration cannot be compelled with respect to disputes arising under federal securities laws. The subject provision, supplied by appellants, in no way indicates dependence on the rule set forth in Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 74 S.Ct. 182, 98 L.Ed. 168 (1953), which some courts, including this one, consider to have been overruled in Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
531 So. 2d 1070, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2340, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4616, 1988 WL 107130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talton-v-albaugh-fladistctapp-1988.