Local 814, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. J & B Systems Installers & Moving, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
878 F.2d 38 · 1989
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Consolidation Coal Company v. Local United Mine Workers of America (1995), 794 F. Supp. 1265 - Pompano-Windy City Partners, Ltd. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1992)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Morelite Construction Corp. v. New York City District Council Carpenters Benefit Funds · Kirkland v. Arkansas-Best Freight System Inc.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he law mandates that the court ask itself ... would not a reasonable person have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial if he were one of the founders of the law firm which had recently merged with the attorneys of record of one of the parties?”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Morelite applies to the issue of Narcisco’s alleged partiality. There is a father-son relationship in this ease, but its connection to the arbitration is more attenuated than in Morelite. Appellants invite us to assume that Nareisco refused to cooperate with the grand jury investigation in order to protect James Vincent Braceo and, further, that this requires us to assume that Nareisco would be biased in favor of Angelo Braceo. This is speculation that might suffice to show an “appearance of bias,” but it falls short of Morelite''s “reasonable person” standard. Appellants have presented no other evidence that would lead us to conclude that Narcisco was partial to Angelo Braceo. In the grand jury investigation, Narcisco could have been acting to protect himself, or one of the other targets of the investigation. Even if he was protecting James Vincent Braceo, it does not necessarily follow that his loyalty toward the father would extend to the son.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.