Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 480 F.3d 760 - Resolution Performance Products, LLC v. Paper Allied Industrial Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, Local 4-1201

Resolution Performance Products, LLC v. Paper Allied Industrial Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, Local 4-1201’s Empirical Analysis

480 F.3d 760 · 2007

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
January 2019
most recently cited

7 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. · Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare System, LLC · Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n · Brabham III v. Ag Edwards & Sons Incorporated Ag · Brown v. Nationsbank Corp.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Judicial review of a labor-arbitration decision pursuant to such an agreement is very limited. Courts are not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties’ agreement. We recently reiterated that if an ‘arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, ’ the fact that ‘a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.’ It is only when the arbitrator strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively ‘dispense^] his own brand of industrial justice’ that his decision may be unenforceable. When an arbitrator resolves disputes regarding the application of a contract, and no dishonesty is alleged, the arbitrator’s ‘improvident, even silly, fact finding’ does not provide a basis for a reviewing court to refuse to enforce the award. In discussing the courts’ limited role in reviewing the merits of arbitration awards, we have stated that ‘courts ... have no business weighing the merits of the grievance [or] considering whether there is equity in a particular claim.’ When the judiciary does so, ‘it usurps a function which ... is entrusted to the arbitration tribunal.’ Consistent with this limited role, we said in Misco that ‘[e]ven in the very rare instances when an arbitrator’s procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct, as a rule t”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “does not permit wholesale subcontracting.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.