FEDERAL · 9 U.S.C. · Chapter 1
Witnesses before arbitrators; fees; compelling attendance
9 U.S.C. § 7
Title9 — Arbitration
Chapter1 — GENERAL PROVISIONS
This text of 9 U.S.C. § 7 (Witnesses before arbitrators; fees; compelling attendance) 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. § 7.
Text
The arbitrators selected either as prescribed in this title or otherwise, or a majority of them, may summon in writing any person to attend before them or any of them as a witness and in a proper case to bring with him or them any book, record, document, or paper which may be deemed material as evidence in the case. The fees for such attendance shall be the same as the fees of witnesses before masters of the United States courts. Said summons shall issue in the name of the arbitrator or arbitrators, or a majority of them, and shall be signed by the arbitrators, or a majority of them, and shall be directed to the said person and shall be served in the same manner as subpoenas to appear and testify before the court; if any person or persons so summoned to testify shall refuse or neglect to o
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran
536 U.S. 355 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Bruno Lloyd v. Hovensa, LLC Wyatt, V.I., Inc. Bruno Lloyd v. Hovensa, LLC Wyatt, V.I., Inc.
369 F.3d 263 (Third Circuit, 2004)
Doscher v. Sea Port Group Securities, LLC
832 F.3d 372 (Second Circuit, 2016)
Cigna Healthcare of St. Louis, Inc. v. Timothy N. Kaiser
294 F.3d 849 (Seventh Circuit, 2002)
Hay Group, Inc. v. E.B.S. Acquisition Corp., Pricewaterhousecoopers L.L.P.
360 F.3d 404 (Third Circuit, 2004)
Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann International
168 F.3d 880 (Fifth Circuit, 1999)
BP Exploration Libya Limited v. ExxonMobil Libya L
689 F.3d 481 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
Omni Tech Corporation, Terry Anderson, and Nancy Anderson v. Mpc Solutions Sales, Llc, and Mpc Computers, LLC
432 F.3d 797 (Seventh Circuit, 2005)
Burton v. Bush
614 F.2d 389 (Fourth Circuit, 1980)
Stolt-Nielsen Sa v. Celanese Ag
430 F.3d 567 (Second Circuit, 2005)
The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Board, and Communications Workers of America, Afl-Cio, Intervenor
687 F.2d 633 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Integrity Insurance v. American Centennial Insurance
885 F. Supp. 69 (S.D. New York, 1995)
Odfjell ASA v. Celanese AG
328 F. Supp. 2d 505 (S.D. New York, 2004)
Hires Parts Service, Inc. v. NCR Corp.
859 F. Supp. 349 (N.D. Indiana, 1994)
ImClone Systems Inc. v. Waksal
22 A.D.3d 387 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Dynegy Midstream Services, LP v. Trammochem
451 F.3d 89 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Corcoran v. Shearson/American Express Inc.
596 F. Supp. 1113 (N.D. Georgia, 1984)
Teamsters National Automotive Transporters Industry Negotiating Committee v. Troha
328 F.3d 325 (Seventh Circuit, 2003)
Lloyd v. Hovensa
(Third Circuit, 2004)
Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC
(Seventh Circuit, 2020)
Source Credit
History
(July 30, 1947, ch. 392, 61 Stat. 672; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §14, 65 Stat. 715.)
Editorial Notes
Derivation
Act Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 213, §7, 43 Stat. 884.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1951—Act Oct. 31, 1951, substituted "United States district court for" for "United States court in and for", and "by law for" for "on February 12, 1925, for".
Act Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 213, §7, 43 Stat. 884.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1951—Act Oct. 31, 1951, substituted "United States district court for" for "United States court in and for", and "by law for" for "on February 12, 1925, for".
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
9 U.S.C. § 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/9/7.