Matt Lindland v. United States of Am. Wrestling Ass'n, Inc., & United States Olympic Comm., 228 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Matt Lindland v. United States of Am. Wrestling Ass'n, Inc., & United States Olympic Comm., 228 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland), Inc. v. Buan (ilnd, 2021-04-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland), Inc. v. Buan
N.D. Ill. · 2021 · confidence medium
Ind. 2010) (“When a defendant moves to dismiss a claim for lack of personal jurisdiction and submits affidavits in support, then the plaintiff “must go beyond the pleadings and submit affirmative evidence supporting the exercise of jurisdiction.”) (citing Purdue, 228 F.3d at 782); U.S. v. Gordon, 158 F. Supp. 207, 211 (N.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (2×)
11th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
United Parcel Serv., Inc., 228 F.3d at 782.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen v. Union Pacific Railroad
7th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
E.g., Lindland v. United States Wrestling Association, Inc., 228 F.3d 782, 783 (7th Cir.2000) (per curiam); Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund v. Gary’s Electric Service Co., 340 F.3d 373 (6th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lindland v. United States of America Wrestling Ass'n
7th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
USA Wrestling had no excuse for following Arbitrator Campbell’s unreviewed award rather than a decision of a federal court confirming Arbitrator Burns’s award, and on August 25 we issued a writ of mandamus requiring the district court to ensure that USA Wrestling implemented the Burns Award “immediately and unconditionally.” Lindland v. US Wrestling Association, Inc., 228 F.3d 782 at 783 (7th Cir.2000), On August 26 USA Wrestling finally complied, but the USOC then refused to accept Lindland as a member of the team, asserting that USA Wrestling’s nomination of Lindland was untimely b…
cited Cited "see, e.g." In re NCR Corp.
7th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lindland v. U.S. Wrestling Ass’n, Inc., 228 F.3d 782, 783 (7th Cir.2000) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see, e.g." NCR Corporation v. William Griesbach
7th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lindland v. U.S. Wrestling Ass'n, Inc., 228 F.3d 782, 783 (7th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Matt LINDLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WRESTLING ASSOCIATION, INC., and United States Olympic Committee, Defendants-Appellees
00-3177.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Aug 25, 2000.
228 F.3d 782
Kevin B. Duff (submitted), Steven J. Thompson, Marion B. Adler, Drew G.A. Peel, Jenkens & Gilchrist, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Michael L. Morkin (submitted), Baker & McKenzie, Irving B. Levinson (submitted), Pipier, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Easterbrook, Kanne, Wood.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Yesterday afternoon this court held that Matt Lindland is entitled to an order enforcing Arbitrator Burns’s award in his favor. Under this award, we concluded, Lindland is entitled to be designated as the victor in Bout #244 of USA Wrestling’s Olympic qualification trials, and thus is entitled to be USA Wrestling’s nominee for the Olympic team in the 76 kilogram weight classification of Greco-Roman wrestling. We issued the mandate immediately, allowing the district court to enter a final judgment enforcing the Burns Award. At approximately the same time, a second arbitrator issued an award in a proceeding initiated by Keith Sieracki, the loser in the rematch ordered by Arbitrator Burns. In that proceeding Arbitrator Campbell disagreed with Arbitrator Bums and ordered USA Wrestling to ignore the result of the rematch and transmit Sier-acki’s name to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) as its sole nominee, because Sieracki had prevailed in the first bout.

Since then two things of moment have occurred. First, USA Wrestling attempted to comply with both decisions. It sent the USOC a notice half-heartedly (and under protest) informing it of our decision, but not “nominating” Lindland. Simultaneously it sent the USOC a notice withdrawing any nomination of Lindland and nominating Sieracki as the member of the team. (We rely on copies attached to Lindland’s motion; it may be necessary for the district court to determine whether these are USA Wrestling’s actual statements to the USOC.) Second, Lindland asked the district court to enforce our decision and hold USA Wrestling in contempt. The district court (per Judge Lindberg, apparently serving as the emergency judge) denied this motion, stating that he lacked jurisdiction to do anything. Lindland now seeks a writ of mandamus.

Our opinion holds that Lindland is entitled to an order enforcing Arbitrator Burns’s decision. We issued the mandate immediately so that the district court could enter just such an order. Its failure to comply with our directions is baffling— once the mandate issued, the case was again “in” the district court — and we now issue a writ of mandamus directing it to do so forthwith. Moreover, once the order has issued, USA Wrestling must immediately perform its obligations, and if it does not do this the district court must hold it in contempt of court and impose a sanction adequate to ensure that our directions are implemented immediately and unconditionally.

USA Wrestling apparently believes that it is caught between Scylla and Charybdis, but it is not. On the one hand, Arbitrator Campbell has instructed it to disregard the Burns Award and nominate Sieracki. Arbitrator Campbell’s decision has not been subject to judicial review or enforcement. On the other hand, the Judicial Branch of the United States of America has instructed it to implement the Burns Award by making Lindland its nominee. Choosing which instructions to follow should not be difficult — but if USA Wrestling continues equivocating, the district court should be able to make the wiser course clear.

Mandamus issued.