October Term 2002 · Docket 01-800
Who decides if a securities claim is too old?
Investors and a brokerage firm dispute who decides if a claim is time-barred.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Friedberg argued the firm pushed investors into arbitration.
Mr. Roberts argued the arbitrator should decide the timeliness issue.
Mr. Starr argued the contract determines who decides the issue.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 37-21 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 37-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case asks who decides if a claim is too old. The investors want a judge to decide. The firm wants an arbitrator to decide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 37-21 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 37-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-41
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 9, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-21
What each side wants
The investors want a judge to decide if their claim is too old.
The firm wants an arbitrator to decide if the claim is too old.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 37-21 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 37-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-41
What each side says
The investors argue the judge must decide the timeliness issue.
The firm argues the arbitrator must decide the timeliness issue.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 37-21 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 37-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-41
What the justices asked
The Chief Justice asked if the parties intended to arbitrate under specific rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-21
Why it matters
This dispute determines who controls the timeliness of investor claims. It affects the balance of power in financial arbitration.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 37-21 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 37-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-41
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 19-21
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 37-21 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 37-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 37-21 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 37-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 21-41
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.