FEDERAL · 9 U.S.C. · Chapter 2
Jurisdiction; amount in controversy
9 U.S.C. § 203
Title9 — Arbitration
Chapter2 — CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS
This text of 9 U.S.C. § 203 (Jurisdiction; amount in controversy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
9 U.S.C. § 203.
Text
An action or proceeding falling under the Convention shall be deemed to arise under the laws and treaties of the United States. The district courts of the United States (including the courts enumerated in section 460 of title 28) shall have original jurisdiction over such an action or proceeding, regardless of the amount in controversy.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
559 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Sole Resort, S.A. De C v. V. Allure Resorts Management, Llc, Docket No. 05-5786-Cv
450 F.3d 100 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Glencore Grain Rotterdam B v. V. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co.
284 F.3d 1114 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Rizalyn Bautista v. Star Cruises
396 F.3d 1289 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
Cargill International S.A., and Cargill, B v. V. M/t Pavel Dybenko, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., in Rem Novorossiysk Shipping Co., in Personam
991 F.2d 1012 (Second Circuit, 1993)
Europcar Italia, S.P.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Inc.
156 F.3d 310 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT
293 F.3d 270 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
GSS Group Ltd. v. National Port Authority
680 F.3d 805 (D.C. Circuit, 2012)
Ario v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds
618 F.3d 277 (Third Circuit, 2010)
McCreary Tire & Rubber Company v. Ceat S.P.A. v. Mellon Bank, N.A. Garnishee
501 F.2d 1032 (Third Circuit, 1974)
Industrial Risk Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshutte GmbH
141 F.3d 1434 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
Telcordia Tech Inc, in the Matter of the Arbitration of Certain Controversies Between v. Telkom Sa Ltd
458 F.3d 172 (Third Circuit, 2006)
Acosta v. Master Maintenance & Construction Inc.
452 F.3d 373 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Westmoreland Capital Corporation, Joseph M. Jayson and Judith P. Jayson v. George D. Findlay and John F. Joyce
100 F.3d 263 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Lander Company, Inc. v. Mmp Investments, Inc.
107 F.3d 476 (Seventh Circuit, 1997)
Czarina, L.L.C. v. W. F. Poe Syndicate
358 F.3d 1286 (Eleventh Circuit, 2004)
Lucent Technologies Inc. And Lucent Technologies Grl LLC v. Tatung Co.
379 F.3d 24 (Second Circuit, 2004)
Casa Del Caffe Vergnano S.P.A. v. Italflavors, LLC
816 F.3d 1208 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Sembawang Shipyard, Ltd., Cross-Appellant v. Charger, Inc., and M/v Charger, Cross-Appellees
955 F.2d 983 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)
Infuturia Global Ltd. v. Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
631 F.3d 1133 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Source Credit
History
(Added Pub. L. 91–368, §1, July 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 692.)
Editorial Notes
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date
Section effective upon the entry into force of the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards with respect to the United States (Dec. 29, 1970), see section 4 of Pub. L. 91–368, set out as a note under section 201 of this title.
Effective Date
Section effective upon the entry into force of the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards with respect to the United States (Dec. 29, 1970), see section 4 of Pub. L. 91–368, set out as a note under section 201 of this title.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
9 U.S.C. § 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/9/203.