Philadelphia Dress Joint Board v. Rosinsky

Third Circuit

Philadelphia Dress Joint Board v. Rosinsky

229 F.2d 438

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 1956

DocketNo. 11717

StatusPublished

This text of 229 F.2d 438 (Philadelphia Dress Joint Board v. Rosinsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Philadelphia Dress Joint Board v. Rosinsky, 229 F.2d 438 (3d Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was a suit under section 9 of title 9, United States Code, to enforce an award rendered in an arbitration proceeding between the parties. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the action was properly denied by the district court upon the authority of Tenney Engineering, Inc., v. United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America, 3 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 450. Subsequently the district court entered judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals. We have examined the defendant’s contentions raised on this appeal and find them to be without merit. They are fully discussed in the opinion of the district court filed by Judge Lord, 134 F.Supp. 607, and we are in agreement with what is there said. No further discussion of them here is necessary.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This was a suit under section 9 of title 9, United States Code, to enforce an award rendered in an arbitration proceeding between the parties. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the action was properly denied by the district court upon the authority of Tenney Engineering, Inc., v. United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America, 3 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 450. Subsequently the district court entered judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals. We have examined the defendant’s contentions raised on this appeal and find them to be without merit. They are fully discussed in the opinion of the district court filed by Judge Lord, 134 F.Supp. 607, and we are in agreement with what is there said. No further discussion of them here is necessary.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 F.2d 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philadelphia-dress-joint-board-v-rosinsky-ca3-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack