green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.2 score
“presumption in favor of arbitrability ... should only be dispelled when the agreement explicitly exempts certain conduct ... or when the terms of the agreement, read as a whole, clearly envision nonarbitrability”
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cumberland Typographical Union No. 244 v. Times & Alleganian Co.
presumption in favor of arbitrability ... should only be dispelled when the agreement explicitly exempts certain conduct ... or when the terms of the agreement, read as a whole, clearly envision nonarbitrability
discussed
Cited "see"
Nelton v. Farmers Property and Casualty Insurance Company
See Fisher v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 895 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1990) and Netto v. Amtrak, 863 F.2d 1210, 1216 (5th Cir. 1989). 81 10A Wright, Miller, and Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2740 (1983). 82 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Spence & Green Chemical Co., 612 F.2d 896, 901 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1082 , 101 S.Ct. 866 , 66 L.Ed.2d 806 (1981) (quoting Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton–Norwich Products, Inc., 520 F.2d 289, 297 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1116 , 47 L.Ed.2d 320 (1976)). 83 Gossett v. Du–Ra–Kel Corp., 569 F.2d …
discussed
Cited "see"
Sharon Kinkead v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
See Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Prods., 520 F.2d 289, 297 (8th Cir.1975), ce rt. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1116 , 47 L.Ed.2d 320 (1976) (stating that a discovery motion cannot be used to postpone summary judgment without some showing of relevance).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Day
See People v. Winslow, 26 Ill.App.3d 1035, 1038 , 325 N.E.2d 426, 428 (1975) (person making jerking motion on far side of car in an area where auto thefts had occurred, created sufficient possibility person was “pulling” the car lock), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1114 , 47 L.Ed.2d 319 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Scott County Master Docket
See Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 520 F.2d 289, 293 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1116 , 47 L.Ed.2d 320 (1976); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f).
discussed
Cited "see"
John Peterson Motors, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.
See Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 520 F.2d 289 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1116 , 47 L.Ed.2d 320 (1976); Umdenstock v. American Mortgage & Investment Co., 495 F.2d 589, 592 (10th Cir.1974).
cited
Cited "see"
Nestle Co., Inc. v. Chester's Market, Inc.
Accord, Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 520 F.2d 289, 297 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1116 , 47 L.Ed.2d 320 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Spencer v. Board of Police Commissioners
See, for example, Lyons v. Board of Ed. of Charleston, Etc., 523 F.2d 340, 347 (8 Cir. 1975), which quoted the following from Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 520 F.2d 289, 293 (8 Cir. 1975), cert. denied 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1116 , 47 L.Ed.2d 320 (1975): * Summary judgment is always warranted where the party resisting the motion does so by relying solely upon his pleadings and submits no evidence to rebut the moving party’s conclusive demonstration of absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
discussed
Cited "see"
Moats v. United States
See, for example, Lyons v. Board of Ed. of Charleston, Etc., 523 F.2d 340, 347 (8 Cir. 1975), which quoted the following from Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 520 F.2d 289, 293 (8 Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1116 , 47 L.Ed.2d 320 (1975): Summary judgment is always warranted where the party resisting the motion does so by relying solely upon his pleadings and submits no evidence to rebut the moving party’s conclusive demonstration of absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
cited
Cited "see"
Wilkes-Barre Publishing Co. v. Newspaper Guild of Wilkes-Barre, Local 120
See Controlled Sanitation Corp. v. District 128, International Association of Machinists, 524 F.2d 1324 , 1329 n.7 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1114 , 47 L.Ed.2d 319 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hollins v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
R.Civ.P. 56). 10 However, the rule “provides for comparatively limited discovery for the purpose of showing facts sufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion, [unlike] Rule 26, which provides for broad pretrial discovery.” First Nat’l Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 265 , 88 S.Ct. 1575 , 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968); see, e.g., Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products, 520 F.2d 289, 297 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1116 , 47 L.Ed.2d 320 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rochdale Village, Inc. v. Public Service Employees Union, Local No. 80
See also Controlled Sanitation Corporation v. District 128, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 524 F.2d 1324 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1114 , 47 L.Ed.2d 319 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca2 1979
See also Controlled Sanitation Corporation v. District 128, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 524 F.2d 1324 (3d Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1114 , 47 L.Ed.2d 319 (1976). 30 Under Rochdale's collective bargaining agreement as written, therefore, the question of repudiation was arbitrable and the district court properly declined to decide this question.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United Steelworkers of America v. Fort Pitt Steel Casting
See also Controlled Sanitation Corp. v. District 120, International Ass’n of Machinists, 524 F.2d 1324 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1114 , 47 L.Ed.2d 319 (1976). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United Steelworkers Of America, Afl-Cio v. Fort Pitt Steel Casting
See also Controlled Sanitation Corp. v. District 120, International Ass'n of Machinists, 524 F.2d 1324 (3d Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct. 1114 , 47 L.Ed.2d 319 (1976) 19 Fort Pitt also contends: 1) that the court abused its discretion in granting the injunction because the Union had "unclean hands"; 2) that the injunction was prohibited by § 8 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 108 , which states that "(n)o . . . injunctive relief shall be granted to any complainant . . . who has failed to make every reasonable effort to settle (the) dispute" in question; 3) that the…
Winslow
v.
Illinois
v.
Illinois
No. 75-892.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 23, 1976.
Published
Citer courts: D. Maryland (1)
App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.