S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., No. 92-1423
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOKEN; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 959 F.2d 97 |
| Parties | S & M CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The FOLEY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1423 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1992 |
Page 97
v.
The FOLEY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided March 16, 1992.
Robert J. Andrews, Kansas City, Mo., argued (Ronald L. Kraft, on brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Kevin E. Glynn, Kansas City, Mo., argued (William J. Debauche, on brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
S & M Constructors, Inc., appeals from an order of the district court denying its motion for a preliminary injunction to halt arbitration proceedings which were scheduled to commence February 25, 1992. S & M has presented a motion for stay pending appeal. We set the motion for oral argument and stayed commencement of arbitration until the motion could be heard. We now deny the motion for stay.
S & M was a subcontractor of Foley Company, which had contracted with the Corps of Engineers to construct defense related facilities requiring security clearances. The project has been completed. The contract between S & M and Foley contained an arbitration clause. Foley's contract with the Corps provided that the contractor would submit claims to the government under the Contract Disputes Act. 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613. The contract terms were incorporated in the S & M subcontract. S & M filed a notice of arbitration, and Foley asserted counterclaims against S & M. Foley, at S & M's request, has filed claims with the contracting officer under the Contract Disputes Act. Foley filed an application to stay arbitration in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri in the fall of 1991, but this action was evidently dismissed by agreement of the parties. The arbitration was scheduled to commence in February, 1992. On January 23, 1992, S & M filed a petition for a temporary restraining order in the Circuit
Page 98
Court of Jackson County, Missouri. A temporary restraining order was entered but was dissolved by that court in an order dated February 10, 1992. The arbitration was then scheduled for February 25, 1992.On February 14, S & M filed this motion for temporary restraining order in the United States District Court, and a hearing was held in which the district court considered the case as a motion for preliminary injunction against the arbitration proceedings. The district court applied only one of the factors under Dataphase...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Burr, Case No. 4:14–cv–085
...preliminary injunctive relief, the likelihood of success on the merits is "most significant." S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir. 1992). The Court must consider the substantive claims in determining whether the Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the meri......
-
Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n v. Tufte, Case No.: 1:17–cv–141
...four factors to be considered by the district court in considering preliminary injunctive relief. S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir. 1992). When evaluating a movant's likelihood of success on the merits, the court should "flexibly weigh the case's particular ci......
-
Brady v. Nat'l Football League, No. 11–1898.
...of success on the merits. Shrink Mo. Gov. PAC v. Adams, 151 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir.1998); S & M Constructors, Inc. v. The Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir.1992). The movant must show that it will suffer irreparable injury unless a stay is granted. Packard Elevator v. ICC, 782 F.2d 112, 1......
-
Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade, No. C 94-4117.
...also success on the merits), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 578, 130 L.Ed.2d 493 (1994); S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir.) (district court applied only one of the Dataphase factors, likelihood of success on the merits, but the appellate court applied a......
-
Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Burr, Case No. 4:14–cv–085
...preliminary injunctive relief, the likelihood of success on the merits is "most significant." S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir. 1992). The Court must consider the substantive claims in determining whether the Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the meri......
-
Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n v. Tufte, Case No.: 1:17–cv–141
...four factors to be considered by the district court in considering preliminary injunctive relief. S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir. 1992). When evaluating a movant's likelihood of success on the merits, the court should "flexibly weigh the case's particular ci......
-
Brady v. Nat'l Football League, No. 11–1898.
...of success on the merits. Shrink Mo. Gov. PAC v. Adams, 151 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir.1998); S & M Constructors, Inc. v. The Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir.1992). The movant must show that it will suffer irreparable injury unless a stay is granted. Packard Elevator v. ICC, 782 F.2d 112, 1......
-
Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade, No. C 94-4117.
...also success on the merits), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 578, 130 L.Ed.2d 493 (1994); S & M Constructors, Inc. v. Foley Co., 959 F.2d 97, 98 (8th Cir.) (district court applied only one of the Dataphase factors, likelihood of success on the merits, but the appellate court applied a......