Legal Opinion
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company and the Dayton Power and Light Company v. Benjamin F. Shaw Company
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided April 27, 1983No. 82-3038PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LIVELY, Circuit Judge.
This case involves a dispute between two parties to a contract for the construction of an electrical generating plant. The question is whether this dispute is subject to arbitration provisions of the contract.
I
The plaintiffs, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company and Dayton Power and Light (hereafter CG & E) contracted with the defendant, The Benjamin F. Shaw Company (hereafter Shaw) to fabricate and install piping and instrumentation for a coal burning electrical generating plant known as East Bend No. 2. The contract contained a broad arbitration clause (No. 34) which…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Par-Knit Mills, Inc. v. Stockbridge Fabrics Company, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg American LineSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Matterhorn, Inc. v. Ncr CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- Marks 3-Zet-Ernst Marks GmBh & Co. KG v. Presstek, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
- Nestle Waters North America, Inc. v. BollmanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- Dorothy Zosky v. Daniel Boyer and Boenning and ScattergoodCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Arnold v. Arnold Corp.-Printed Communications for BusinessCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.