28 U.S.C. § 657
Arbitration award and judgment
The Federal Rules of Evidence, referred to in subsec. (c)(3)(A), are set out in the Appendix to this title.
1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to arbitration award and judgment for provisions relating to compensation of arbitrators.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2021 · leading case: Wilson v. Commissioner
Wilson v. Commissioner (2013)
“§ 2023 (a)(15); 28 U.S.C. § 657 (a), (c); 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (c); 42 U.”
Portland Trailer & Equipment, Inc. v. A-1 Freeman Moving & Storage, Inc. (2002)
“” See 28 USC § 657 (b). The award therefore retained no legal effect.”
United States v. Awadallah (2002)
“”) (emphasis added); 28 U.S.C. §§ 657 , 659 (1928) (quoted supra Part IV.”
Housing Authority of Beaver County v. Alberts (In Re Alberts) (2008)
“”) (emphasis added); see also the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 28 U.S.C. § 657 (c)(2) (indicating that "[ujpon a demand for a trial de novo, the action shall be restored to the docket of the court and treated for all purposes as if it had not been referred to…”
In the Matter of the Petition of Leslie Bacon for Writ of Habeas Corpus v. United States (1971)
“Unfortunately, the effect of Rule 46(b) on superseded sections 657 and 659 of Title: 28 does not clearly emerge from the statutory history. The Committee Note to Rule 48(b) of the Second Preliminary Draft of the Rules (renumbered Rule 46(b) in the final draft) states that both…”
Environmental Industrial Services Corp. v. Souders (2004)
“Parties’ Contentions Environmental contends that Defendant’s Motion To Enter Judgment is procedurally deficient and should be denied because Defendant seeks judgment pursuant to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, 28 U.S.C. § 657 (a), and not the Federal Arbitration…”
Empire Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Marshall (1977)
“The Court enjoined the Secretary of Labor from acting pursuant to § 8(a) of the Act, in conducting or attempting to conduct any general searches or inspections of the nonpublic portions of the premises of the plaintiff pursuant to § 8(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
In Re Inspection of Norfolk Dredging Company. Appeal of United States Secretary of Labor (1986)
“2d 305 (1978), that the fourth amendment prohibits warrant-less safety inspections under 28 U.S.C.A. § 657 (a). The inspection in Burlington occurred three years prior, in 1975.”
Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Marshall (1979)
“Now that Barlow’s has determined that inspections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 657 (a) must satisfy the Fourth Amendment — both as to the necessity of a warrant for nonconsensual inspections and as to the demonstration of probable cause — the Review Commission may consider motions to…”
Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Donovan (1982)
“In that case, the Court noted that probable cause for workplace inspections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 657 could be established not only on specific evidence of an existing violation but also on a showing that “reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an .”
John D'IorIo Diane D'IorIo v. Majestic Lanes Inc., a New Jersey Corporation (2004)
“28 U.S.C. § 657 (c) (emphasis added) Majestic argues that by allowing D’lorio to resurrect his arbitration award by withdrawing his demand for a trial de novo, the emphasized portion of Rule 201.”
Kobell v. Reid Plastics, Inc. (1991)
“DISCUSSION OF SCHEDULING OF HEARING Since the Court must expedite consideration of this proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 657 (a), and in view of the Court’s badly overburdened docket, the Court deems it appropriate to defer to the petitioner’s proposal that he schedule the administrative…”
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.