Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. Frank C. Schoonejongen, et al.
Decided March 6, 1995. Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
Docket 93-1935 · 514 U.S. 73 (1995) · Cited 637 times
Holding
The arbitral award should have been enforced as within the scope of the contract between the parties.
The Court’s statement of the holding, from the opinion’s syllabus. The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court — read the official opinion for authority.
How the Justices voted
Decided 9–0.
Majority · 9
“Concurring” means agreeing with the outcome; any split shown is the Court’s judgment, not each Justice’s reasoning. Source: the Supreme Court Database (Spaeth et al.), Washington University.
Precedents cited
Supreme Court decisions this opinion relies on, ordered by how often it cites each. Cases in our collection link through; others are named.
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · 463 U.S. 85 (1983)
Cited by
Later Supreme Court opinions in our collection that cite this case.
- Varity Corp. v. Howe · 516 U.S. 489 (1996)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen · 569 U.S. 88 (2013)
- LOCKHEED CORP. Et Al. v. SPINK · 517 U.S. 882 (1996)
- Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. · 571 U.S. 99 (2013)
- Inter-Modal Rail Employees Ass'n v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · 520 U.S. 510 (1997)
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson · 525 U.S. 432 (1999)
- CIGNA Corp. v. Amara · 563 U.S. 421 (2011)
- Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan · 555 U.S. 285 (2009)
- Conkright v. Frommert · 559 U.S. 506 (2010)
Official text
Read the official opinion (U.S. Reports, govinfo.gov)
Explore from here
Sandra Day O'Connor’s profile · All Supreme Court opinions · The Supreme Court
Source: Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinions (1995). Citation count from the Free Law Project’s CourtListener bulk data. Data last verified 2026-07-03. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).