Canfield v. Canfield

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a claim is preempted by § 301 because the “complaint challenges the legality of a term of the CBA,” which “will require substantial analysis of the CBA”
• noting that one of the purposes of the FAA is to reduce the costs of dispute resolution
• finding that “we must interpret the CBA to determine whether it embodies an agreement between the parties to alter the common law rule regarding when commissions are earned”
• noting Congress’ determination that arbitration “is to be encouraged as a means of reducing the costs and delays associated with litigation”
• noting that a claim will not be preempted “if its application required mere referral to the CBA for information such as rate of pay and other economic benefits that might be helpful in determining the damages”
• \[W]e generally evaluate a defendant's right to remove a case to federal court at the time the removal notice is filed.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).