October Term 2005 · Docket 04-1264

Who decides if a contract is void?

A check-cashing company wants a judge to dismiss a lawsuit. A customer wants an arbitrator to hear the case.

Official caption
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Landau argued federal law controls the dispute.

    Mr. Bland argued state law remains valid.

    justice_questions

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Buckeye Check Cashing seeks a court dismissal. Cardegna seeks arbitration. The dispute centers on who decides contract validity.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 29, 2005.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Buckeye Check Cashing wants a judge to dismiss the case.

Cardegna wants an arbitrator to decide the dispute.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Buckeye Check Cashing argues federal law preempts state rules.

Cardegna argues state law controls contract validity.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kennedy asked how to describe the court's role.

Chief Justice Roberts asked about void versus voidable contracts.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines who decides contract disputes. It shapes access to arbitration. It impacts consumer protection laws.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON