Question
CHAPTER 3 - C ASE S YNOPSIS Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. Levco Construction, Inc. Cleveland Construction, Inc. (CCI), was the general contractor on a project
CHAPTER 3 - C
ASE
S
YNOPSIS
Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. Levco Construction, Inc.
Cleveland Construction, Inc. (CCI), was the general contractor on a project to build a grocery
store in Houston, Texas. CCI hired Levco Construction, Inc., as a subcontractor to perform
excavation and grading. The contract provided that any dispute would be resolved by arbitration in
Ohio. When a dispute arose, Levco filed a suit against CCI in a Texas state court. CCI sought to
compel arbitration in Ohio under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Because a Texas statute allows a
party to void a contract provision that requires arbitration outside Texas, the court denied CCIs
request. CCI appealed.
A state intermediate appellate court reversed. The parties had a valid arbitration agreement. If the
court applied the Texas statute, it would void the agreement. This, the court decided, would
undermine the declared federal policy of rigorous enforcement of arbitration agreements. And the
FAA, as a federal law, preempted the Texas statute under the supremacy clause.
Why do you think that Levco did not want its claim decided by arbitration?
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started