green
Positive treatment
2.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1961 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1961
1993
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Pan Atlantic Group, Inc. v. Republic Insurance
See Matter of Weinrot, 32 N.Y.2d 190, 198 , 344 N.Y.S.2d 848 , 298 N.E.2d 42 (1973) (identifying speed and finality as two primary virtues of arbitration), citing Amicizia Societa Nav. v. Chilean Nitrate & Iodine Sales Corp., 274.F.2d 805, 808 (2d Cir.1960) (citing avoidance of litigation as ostensible purpose for arbitration), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 843 , 80 S.Ct. 1612 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1727 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see"
Trump Plaza Associates v. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 54
See Amicizia Societa Navegazione v. Chilean Nitrate & Iodine Sales Corp., 274 F.2d 805 (2d Cir.) cert. denied 363 U.S. 843 , 80 S.Ct. 1612 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1727 (1960); cf. Perry v. Thomas, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2520 , 96 L.Ed.2d 426 (1987) (discussing arbitration in context of securities dispute).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kamakazi Music Corp., Barry Manilow and Warner Bros. Publications Inc. v. Robbins Music Corporation, Vicks Lithograph, Inc.
See Amicizia Societa Navegazione v. Chilean Nitrate and Iodine Sales Corp., 274 F.2d 805, 809 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 843 , 80 S.Ct. 1612 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1727 (1960); Ficek v. Southern Pacific Co., 338 F.2d 655, 656 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 988 , 85 S.Ct. 1362 , 14 L.Ed.2d 280 (1965); Capital City Telephone Co. v. Communication Workers of America, 575 F.2d 655, 658 (8th Cir. 1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re HBLS L.P.
See also Amicizia Societa Navegazione v. Chilean Nitrate & Iodine Sales Corp., 274 F.2d 805, 808 (2d Cir.)(court’s function in confirming or vacating an arbitration award is severely limited), ce rt. denied, 363 U.S. 843 , 80 S.Ct. 1612 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1727 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Hbls Lp
See also Amicizia Societa Navegazione v. Chilean Nitrate & Iodine Sales Corp., 274 F.2d 805, 808 (2d Cir.)(court's function in confirming or vacating an arbitration award is severely limited), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 843 , 80 S.Ct. 1612 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1727 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lybrand v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
Id.; see also Amicizia Societa Navegazione v. Chilean Nitrate & Iodine Sales Corp., 274 F. (2d) 805, 808 (2d Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 843 , 80 S.Ct. 1612 , 4 L.Ed. (2d) 1727 (1960) (“[T]he court’s function in confirming or vacating an arbitration award is severely limited.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Reyes Compania Naviera S.A. v. Manumante S.A.
See also America Renaissance Lines, Inc. v. Saxis Steamship Co., 502 F.2d 674, 677 (2d Cir.1974) (“Arbitrators do not have the power to bind a corporation which is not a *792 party to the arbitration contract or a voluntary participant in the arbitration proceeding.”)- Even if an original arbitration clause is not broad enough to cover a particular claim, the parties may “evinc[e] a subsequent agreement for private settlement which would cure any defect in the arbitration clause.” Ficek v. Southern Pacific Co., 338 F.2d 655, 656 (9th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 988 , 82 S.Ct. 136…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sweeney v. Morganroth
See, e. g., Amicizia Societa Nav. v. Chilean Nitrate and Iodine Sales Corp., 274 F.2d 805 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 843 , 80 S.Ct. 1612 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1727 (1960); Oinoussian S.S.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Local Union 866
See, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. Northwest Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., 324 F.2d 479 (9th Cir. 1963) ; compare Amicizia Societa Navegazione v. Chilean Nitrate & Iodine Sales Corp., 274 F.2d 805, 809 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 843 , 80 S.Ct. 1612 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1727 (1960); Woolley v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 250 F.2d 86, 91 (5th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 931 , 78 S.Ct. 773 , 2 L.Ed.2d 761 (1958).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elmer, doing business as Mississippi Testing Laboratories
v.
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
v.
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
No. 945.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1960.
Charles Clark for petitioner. Joseph A. Covington for respondent.
Cited by 132 opinions | Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.