Federal Circuits, 3rd Cir. (November 15, 1962)
Docket number: 14020
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/cahn-schiro-fashionality-blouses-dash-36690200
Id. vLex: VLEX-36690200
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - S & S Logging Co., Inc., Appellant, v. B. G. Barker and Jane Doe Barker, His Wife, Bob Jones and Jane Doe Jones, His Wife, Ivan O. Jones and Jane Doe Jones, His Wife, Harold C. Chriswell and Iris E. Chriswell, His Wife, Wm. O. Benecke and Ruth Benecke, His Wife, Summit Timber Company, a Washington Corporation, and Eclipse Timber Co., a Washington Corporation, Defendants, Lewis Hovde and Jane Doe Hovde, His Wife, and the Bank of Sumas, a Banking Corporation, Additional Defendants, (Harold C. Chriswell Et Ux. and Wm. O. Benecke Et Ux. of Defendants), Appellees., 366 F.2d 617 (9th Cir. 1966) Inc., Appellant, v. B. G. Barker and Jane Doe Barker, His Wife, Bob Jones and Jane Doe Jones, His Wife, Ivan O. Jones and Jane Doe Jones, His Wife, Harold C. Chriswell and Iris E. Chriswell, His Wife, Wm. O. Benecke and Ruth Benecke, His Wife, Summit Timber Company, a Washington Corporation, and Eclipse Timber Co., a Washington Corporation, Defendants, Lewis Hovde and Jane Doe Hovde, His Wife, and the Bank of Sumas, a Banking Corporation, Additional Defendants, (Harold C. Chriswell Et Ux. and Wm. O. Benecke Et Ux. of Defendants), Appellees.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Garland v. US Airways Inc (3rd Cir. 2008)
George A. D'Angelo, Philadelphia, Pa. (Geoffrey J. Cunniff, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for Mac J. Cahn and Sidney L. Schiro, d/b/a Fashionality Blouses, appellants.
Berthold W. Levy, Philadelphia, Pa. (Sterling, Magaziner, Stern & Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for G. Allan Dash, Jr., appellee.Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and GANEY, Circuit Judges.PER CURIAM.Appellee was the validly appointed chairman of an arbitration between employer, Sidele Fashions, Inc., and the defendant, Joint Board of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, concerning a dispute arising out of the contract between them. Plaintiffs-appellants were the principal stockholders and owners of Sidele Fashions, Inc. Sidele challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and the union sued to compel arbitration. There was judgment for the union on the pleadings. The dispute was decided by the arbitrator and the union sued to confirm the award. The latter action is pending.Plaintiffs then brought the present action. In it they assert that the defendants have engaged in an unlawful combination to restrain trade and create a monopoly among themselves in the manufacture, sale and distribution of ladies apparel in violation of the Sherman Act. Details of the alleged combination and conspiracy are stated including the following:'(h) Harass, unlawfully and improperly, manufacturers of Woman's apparel in the Philadelphia area who were not members of the Association with the purpose of compelling said manufacturers to become and remain members of the Association.'(i) Use the office of Impartial Chairman, filed since on or about February, 1959, by defendant G. Allan Dash, Jr., as an instrument of force and coercion to compel Plaintiffs and other Association members unlawfully to adhere to and maintain contract provisions, customs and practices which were and are violations of the Statute Laws of the United States particularly the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and other Federal Statutes relating to monopolistic practices, thereby aiding, abetting and accomplishing the conspiracy alleged herein.'(j) Procure and arrange for the Impartial Chairman to inflict heavy fines and penalties on Plaintiffs and others in order to prevent Plaintiffs and others from operating freely and economically in the market place.'The district court sustained appellee's motion to dismiss the above quoted paragraphs from the complaint and plaintiffs appeal.We agree with the district court that the allegations of the said paragraphs are based upon the conduct of the appellee in his capacity as arbitrator; that in so functioning he was performing quasi-judicial duties and was '* * * clothed with an immunity, analogous to judicial immunity, against actions brought by either of the parties arising out of his performance of his * * * duties.' Cooper v. O'Connor, 69 App.D.C. 100,Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access