No. 20-663
Peter R. Culpepper v. Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Response Waived
Tags: arbitration-agreement dispute-resolution federal-arbitration-act grounds-for-vacating notice-requirement preemption state-arbitration-law state-law-preemption supremacy-clause time-limitation
Latest Conference:
2021-01-08
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether a state arbitration law that provides a stricter mandate than Congress intended is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a state arbitration law that provides a stricter mandate than Congress intended is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2
Docket Entries
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-07
Waiver of right of respondent Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. to respond filed.
2020-11-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 14, 2020)
Attorneys
Peter R. Culpepper
Peter Culpepper — Petitioner
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
John Spaulding Hicks — Baker, Donelson, et al., Respondent