Public-domain · open source

353 F.2d 484

Docket No. 99, Docket 29552.

Goldstein v. Doft

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Oct. 27, 1965.

Decided Nov. 22, 1965.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1965-11-22

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"As with appellant's other claims on the merits, the difference between the issues litigated before the arbitrators and those attempted to be presented in this subsequent litigation is on of semantics only. . . . Arbitration would be of little value if the entire controversy or any part thereof could be reopened later by a mere change in the words or phrases used to characterize the matters included in the claim the arbitrators had rejected."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 473 F. Supp. 25 - Maidman v. O'BRIEN, 790 So. 2d 922 - Old Republic Insurance Company v. Lanier

Relies on Goldstein v. Doft

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1965-11-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2011 · most notably United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. (1966), Federal Trade Commission v. Texaco, Inc. Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Company. Federal Trade Commission v. The Superior Oil Company, Inc., a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Exxon Corporation, a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Shell Oil Company, a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Company of California, a Corporation. Federal Trade Commission v. Mobil Oil Corporation, a Corporation (1977)

14 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Jacob Rassner, New York City (Leonard H. Wallach, New- York City, on the brief), for plain tiff-appellant.

¶2Samuel B. Seidel, New York City (Kurzman & Frank, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

¶3Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5We affirm on Judge Weinfeld’s opinion below, reported at 236 F.Supp. 730. While Judge Weinfeld’s opinion makes no specific reference to the allegations that appellant was deprived “of the fruits of his labors in introducing a new line to the shoe trade,” it is clear from the context that this item was not overlooked. As with appellant’s other claims on the merits, the difference between the issues litigated before the arbitrators and those attempted to be presented in this subsequent litigation is one of semantics only. The introduction of “a new line to the shoe trade” turns out to refer not to shoes but to “fabrics for the shoe trade” and thus is in the category of the goods appellant was to sell under his contract of February 26, 1948. Appellant was afforded the fullest opportunity to present his proofs to the arbitrators and he did so. Arbitration would be of little value if the entire controversy or any part thereof could be reopened later by a mere change in the words or phrases used to characterize the matters included in the claim the arbitrators had rejected.

¶6Affirmed.