Cheminova A/S v. Griffin L.L.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that the term “binding,” there in the context of a statute governing pesticides that provided that agency determinations would be “binding,” was “understood to mean that an award will be enforceable in court”
• confirming a FIFRA arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9
• drawing from already-existing arbitration law to determine the plain meaning of the phrases “binding arbitration proceedings” and “final and conclusive” in FIFRA, but making no determination about the presumptive applicability of FAA procedural rules
• arbitration mechanism does “not require active government involvement ... [and] should be determined to the fullest extent practicable, within the private sector”
• “absent a plain indication to the contrary, Congress intended the FIFRA arbitration scheme to fit within existing arbitration law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).