Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Air Line Pilots Association, International v. Department of Transportation, Arthur N. Rogers and Michael J. Baker, Intervenors
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided August 24, 1989No. 88-1593Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMikva, Circuit Judge
I concur in my colleague’s well reasoned conclusion that the order of the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT” or “agency”) directing arbitration was invalid. I cannot agree, however, that we are at liberty under our controlling precedent, Carey v. O’Donnell, 506 F.2d 107 (D.C.Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1110, 95 S.Ct. 783, 42 L.Ed.2d 806 (1975), to allow parties to continue federal district court litigation while simultaneously maintaining arbitration petitions. I would grant the Air Line Pilots Association (“ALPA”) the injunction it seeks to prevent such multifariousness.
In Carey…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- McClellan v. CarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Merrild Augspurger v. Brotherhood of Locomotive EngineersCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1975
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.