Goldstein v. Doft
| Decision Date | 22 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 99,Docket 29552.,99 |
| Citation | 353 F.2d 484 |
| Parties | Edward GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Max DOFT, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Jacob Rassner, New York City (Leonard H. Wallach, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Samuel B. Seidel, New York City (Kurzman & Frank, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
We affirm on Judge Weinfeld's opinion below, reported at 236 F.Supp. 730. While Judge Weinfeld's opinion makes no specific reference to the allegations that appellant was deprived "of the fruits of his labors in introducing a new line to the shoe trade," it is clear from the context that this item was not overlooked. As with appellant's other claims on the merits, the difference between the issues litigated before the arbitrators and those attempted to be presented in this subsequent litigation is one of semantics only. The introduction of "a new line to the shoe trade" turns out to refer not to shoes but to "fabrics for the shoe trade" and thus is in the category of the goods appellant was to sell under his contract of February 26, 1948. Appellant was afforded the fullest opportunity to present his proofs to the arbitrators and he did so. Arbitration would be of little value if the entire controversy or any part thereof could be reopened later by a mere change in the words or phrases used to characterize the matters included in the claim the arbitrators had rejected.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elliott v. University of Tennessee
...preclusion rules to the decision of a private arbitration panel. See Goldstein v. Doft, 236 F.Supp. 730 (S.D.N.Y.1964), aff'd, 353 F.2d 484 (2d Cir.1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 960, 86 S.Ct. 1226, 16 L.Ed.2d 302 (1966).For the reasons noted earlier in this opinion, we do not believe the Co......
-
Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Import Motors Limited, Inc.
...14 See, e. g., Bower v. Eastern Airlines, 214 F.2d 623, 625 (3d Cir. 1954); Goldstein v. Doft, 236 F.Supp. 730 (S.D.N.Y.1964), aff'd 2 Cir., 353 F.2d 484, cert. denied, 383 U.S. 960, 86 S.Ct. 1226, 16 L.Ed.2d 302. Cf. United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422, 86 S.Ct. 1......
-
F. T. C. v. Texaco, Inc.
...222 F.2d 622; Seatrain Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 207 F.2d 255. See also Goldstein v. Doft, D.C.N.Y., 236 F.Supp. 730, aff'd, 2 Cir., 353 F.2d 484, cert. denied, 383 U.S. 960, 86 S.Ct. 1226, 16 L.Ed.2d 302 where collateral estoppel was applied to prevent relitigation of factual dis......
-
Murray v. Alaska Airlines Inc.
...sides]; Goldstein v. Doft (S.D.N.Y.1964) 236 F.Supp. 730, 732 [findings followed hearings and written argument], affd. per curiam (2d Cir.1965) 353 F.2d 484.) We embraced the Utah Construction rule in People v. Sims, supra, 32 Cal.3d 468, 186 Cal.Rptr. 77, 651 P.2d 321. In Sims and every pu......