green
Positive treatment
5.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Co.
It held itself bound by pre-1981 Fifth Circuit precedent, cf. Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 (CA11 1981), to the effect that under the Act’s venue provisions, 9 U. S. C. §§9-11 , venue for motions to confirm, vacate, or modify awards was exclusively in the district in which the arbitration award was made. 169 F. 3d, at 694; Naples v. Prepakt Concrete Co., 490 F. 2d 182, 184 (CA5), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 843 (1974).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
P&P Industries, Inc. v. Sutter Corporation
Co. v. Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc., 169 F.3d 693, 694-95 (11th Cir.1999); Sunshine Beauty Supplies, Inc. v. United States Dist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Triad System Financial Corp. v. Stewart's Auto Supply, Inc.
Co. v. Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc., 169 F.3d 693 (11th Cir.1999), in which the Eleventh Circuit, on March 9, 1999, reaffirmed the proposition that the Federal Arbitration Act’s “venue provision places venue exclusively within the district court in and for the district within which the arbitration award was made.” Id. at 694 (emphasis supplied).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bill Harbert Constr.
v.
Cortez Byrd
v.
Cortez Byrd
98-6404.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 9, 1999.
169 F.3d 693
Published
BILL HARBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a division of Bill Harbert International, Inc., Plaintiff- Counter-Defendant, Appellee,
v.
CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS, INC., Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Appellant.
No. 98-6404
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
May 5, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (No. CV-98-G-117-S); J. Foy Guin, Jr., Judge.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before TJOFLAT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
v.
CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS, INC., Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Appellant.
No. 98-6404
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
May 5, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (No. CV-98-G-117-S); J. Foy Guin, Jr., Judge.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before TJOFLAT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This case comes before us by order of the United States Supreme Court, which has reversed the judgment of this Court and remanded the case for our reconsideration. See Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill
Harbert Constr. Co., 529 U.S. ----, 120 S.Ct. 1331, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2000).
The judgment of the district court is, pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court, reversed, and this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.