U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1961

Petroleum Separating Company v. Interamerican Refining Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided November 20, 1961 · Clark, Hincks, Friendly

296 F.2d 124 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Haliburton Fales, 2d, of White & Case, New York City, for respondent-appellant., Robert M. Loeffler, of Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City (Richard N. Winfield, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Interamerican Refining Corp. v. Texaco Maracaibo, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1970)
Arma, S.R.O. v. Bae Systems Overseas, Inc. (District Court, District of Columbia 2013)
Reichman v. Creative Real Estate Consultants, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1979)
IBEW Local 396 v. Central Telephone Co. (Nev. 1978)
Barker v. Government Employees Insurance Company (District Court, District of Columbia 1972)
Corbin v. Washington Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (District Court, D. South Carolina 1968)
In re the Arbitration between Brill & Muller Bros. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1962)
In re the Arbitration between Brill & Muller Brothers, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1962)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Interamerican Refining Corporation, respondent-appellant, here seeks to upset an arbitration award, made pursuant to an agreement for arbitration by arbitrators duly appointed by the American Arbitration Association, on the ground that the decision was the result of “misconduct” and “evident partiality” for lack of reasonable evidence to support the award. The dispute arose as to respondent’s obligation to make payment of a minimum daily charge for the storage and processing of crude oil by petitioner for respondent, and the award made against respondent was in the amount of $319,-635.70 and interest. The arbitration was conducted in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, as agreed, and we can perceive no misconduct; the arbitrators appear to have accepted hearsay evidence from both parties, as they were entitled to do. If parties wish to rely on such technical objections they should not include arbitration clauses in their contracts. The appeal is quite insubstantial.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.