28 U.S.C. § 655
Arbitrators
1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to arbitrators for provisions relating to trial de novo.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1930–2012 · leading case: Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute
Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (1980)
“1594 , 28 U. S. C. § 655 (b) (5). [1] *613 Wherever the toxic material to be regulated is a carcinogen, the Secretary has taken the position that no safe exposure level can be determined and that § 6 (b) (5) requires him to set an exposure limit at the lowest technologically…”
Hays and Company, as Trustee for Monge Oil Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1989)
“28 U.S.C.A. § 655 . Although section 651(b) states specifically that these arbitration provisions are not to affect title 9, it does show that arbitration, and any delay associated with it, does not necessarily offend the purposes underlying the bankruptcy laws concerning…”
In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas (1978)
“Snyder, supra , stated: *655 "[T]here never has been any indication in Congress or in any Advisory Committee notes brought to our attention of any intent to limit the efficacy of the subpoena by the failure to include the 28 U.S.C. § 655 language [`and not to depart the court…”
United States v. Albert Snyder (1969)
“§ 655 , which enactment required a person served to attend “and not to depart the court without leave thereof, or of the district attorney * * * ” This statute was superseded with the adoption of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (effective 1948), which did not incorporate…”
Delaware Coalition for Open Government v. Strine (2012)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 655 (c) (2006). But an arbitrator and a judge perform very different functions.”
In Re Black (1931)
“§ 877 (28 USCA § 655). The appellant insists that, before a witness is compelled to testify before a grand jury, he should be apprised of the subject-matter of the inquiry or the name of the persons against whom the inquiry is addressed, and that he should not be called upon to…”
State v. Klempt (1995)
“2d 183 (1969) (quoting former 28 U.S.C. § 655 ), the deletion of that statutory language has not changed federal law, which still recognizes that in a criminal trial, “a subpoena to appear on a particular date imposes on the witness a continuing duty to remain in attendance…”
Haug v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. (1996)
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 655 (a) and our local rule, any dissatisfied party may then file a demand for a trial de novo in the district court “within 30 days after the filing of an arbitration award.”
In re a Grand Jury Subpoena Served on Germann (1966)
“1938), supercede 28 U.S.C. § 655 and R.S. § 877 and omit the above quoted language.”
Alphagraphics, Inc. v. Shapiro (1996)
“First, the defendants argue that the court should await entry of confirmation until August 8, 1996, because 28 U.S.C. § 655 (a) purportedly provides them with thirty days from entry of the arbitration award to demand trial de novo.”
In re Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1930)
“The subpoenaing of witnesses on the application for a warrant can be for no other purpose than to secure the missing proof.”
United States v. Williams (1982)
“at 385-386 (construing 28 U.S.C. § 655 , the former statute which has now been replaced (with slightly different language) by Rule 17, supra); see also United States v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.