Huntsman v. United States, 506 U.S. 870 (1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Huntsman v. United States, 506 U.S. 870 (1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 25 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Nancy Lynne Moyer (ca8, 1999-07-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" United States v. Nancy Lynne Moyer
8th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Hood, 51 F.3d 128, 129 (8th Cir.1995), and United States v. Huntsman, 959 F.2d 1429, 1436-37 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 870 , 113 S.Ct. 201 , 121 L.Edüd 143 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" United States Ex Rel. National Roofing Services, Inc. v. Lovering-Johnson, Inc.
D. Kan. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679, 685 (11th Cir.) (“[T]he Federal Arbitration Act allows arbitration to proceed with only a summary hearing and with restricted inquiry into factual issues”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 870 , 113 S.Ct. 201 , 121 L.Ed.2d 143 (1992); Employers Ins. of Wausau, 933 F.2d at 1491 (fair hearing is based on notice, opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and lack of biased decisionmaking); Sunshine Mining Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 823 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir.1987) (“hearing is fundamentally fair if it meets the ‘minimum requirements of fairness’…
cited Cited "see" Castleman v. AFC Enterprises, Inc.
N.D. Tex. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679, 683 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 870 , 113 S.Ct. 201 , 121 L.Ed.2d 143 (1992).
cited Cited "see" Manuel KAPLAN; Carol Kaplan; MK Investments, Inc., Appellants, v. FIRST OPTIONS OF CHICAGO, INC., Appellee
1st Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679, 681-82 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 201 , 121 L.Ed.2d 143 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" St. Helen's Inv., Inc. v. Baardson
10th Cir. · 1994 · signal: accord · confidence high
Co. v. Grace, 668 F.2d 1140 , 1147 (10th Cir.) ("arbitration awards generally need not delineate reasons or reasoning"), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 (1982); accord Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679, 684 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 201 (1992); Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Indus., Inc., 783 F.2d 743 , 750 (8th Cir.). cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1141 (1986).
discussed Cited "see" Bowles Financial Group, Inc. v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679, 685 (11th Cir.) (“[T]he Federal Arbitration Act allows arbitration to proceed with only a summary hearing and with restricted inquiry into factual issues”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 201 , 121 L.Ed.2d 143 (1992); Employers Ins. of Wausau, 933 F.2d at 1491 (fair hearing is based on notice, opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and lack of biased decisionmaking); Sunshine Mining Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 823 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir.1987) (“hearing is fundamentally fair if it meets the ‘minimum requirements of fairness’ �…
cited Cited "see" David Brown and Rita Brown v. Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc., and William H. Brashears
11th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679, 684 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 201 , 121 L.Ed.2d 143 (1992); Raiford, 903 F.2d at 1412 . 4 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." First Preservation Capital, Inc. v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co.
S.D. Fla. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679, 682 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 870 , 113 S.Ct. 201 , 121 L.Ed.2d 143 (1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." O'Rear v. American Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus
M.D. Fla. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Securities, Inc. v. Professional Planning Assocs., Inc., 857 F.2d 742, 749 (11th Cir.1988) (denying motion to vacate arbitration award on grounds of fraud because the moving party had the opportunity to cross-examine on the alleged false testimony); see also Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679, 684 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 201 , 121 L.Ed.2d 143 (1992) (arbitrators need not explain the reasons for their award).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." O'Rear v. AM. FAMILY LIFE ASSUR. CO. OF COLUMBUS
M.D. Fla. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Securities, Inc. v. Professional Planning Assocs., Inc., 857 F.2d 742, 749 (11th Cir.1988) (denying motion to vacate arbitration award on grounds of fraud because the moving party had the opportunity to cross-examine on the alleged false testimony); see also Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679, 684 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 201 , 121 L.Ed.2d 143 (1992) (arbitrators need not explain the reasons for their award).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Huntsman
v.
United States
No. 92-200.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1992.
506 U.S. 870
Published

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.