Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Dispatch Printing Co. v. Teamsters Local Union 284
Dispatch Printing Co. v. Teamsters Loc. Union 284, 951 F.2d 348 (6th Cir. 1991)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1991-12-02
- Topic
- general
951 F.2d 348 142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2176 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. The DISPATCH PRINTING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 284, AFFILIATED WITH the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-3161.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dispatch Printing Co. v. Teamsters Local Union 284. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
The DISPATCH PRINTING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 284, AFFILIATED WITH the INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 91-3161.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 2, 1991.
Before KEITH and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The Dispatch Printing Company appeals from an order of the district court upholding an arbitration award.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are unable to say that the district court erred in upholding the award.
As the reasons why the order should have been entered have been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning set out by that court in its opinion and order filed January 2, 1991.