Legal Opinion
Kirschner v. West Company
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 20, 1960No. Civ. A. 27579PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs in this case have brought an action against the defendant for breach of contract. Federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. The defendant has filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the arbitration provided for in paragraph 15 of the 1952 agreement between the parties. 1 The plaintiffs oppose this motion. They say that this Court cannot stay the proceedings pending arbitration because Illinois law, ■which they assert will not permit such a stay, governs this case, the Federal Arbitration Act being inapplicable. They also contend that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. DarbySupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Robert Lawrence Company, Inc. v. Devonshire Fabrics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Hammer v. DagenhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Mitchell v. C. W. Vollmer & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Leon Kirschner and Henry Naftulin, Individually and as Co-Partners, Trading as K-N Enterprises v. West CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
- Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd. v. MS GALINIDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1971
- Kirschner v. West CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
- Hallo v. FloreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Touton, S.A. v. M v. Rizcun TraderDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998