Vacation of Awards for Fraud, Bias, Misconduct and Partiality
Rothstein, Alan H.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by5
- 1997Town of Wallingford v. Wallingford Police Union Local 1570 Conn. App. Ct.
- 1996City of Hartford v. Local 1716, Council 4, AFSCME Conn. Super. Ct.
- 1995City of New Haven v. Local 884 Conn. App. Ct.
- 1987O & G/O'Connell Joint Venture v. Chase Family Ltd. Partnership No. 3 Conn.
- 1978Richco Structures v. Parkside Village, Inc. Wis.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
The role of the arbitration process in today's society is to supplant the often laborious and time consuming procedures of the courts with a more informal process wherein the parties to a controversy, by agreement, give one or more individuals effective power to render a decision on a particular matter, or on future controversies as they arise. In order that the grant of the power be effective, and that a resulting award be obeyed, the courts will generally enforce a properly made award without examination of the underlying issues or evidence of the controversy developed during the arbitration. Judicial prescriptions originally and, more recently, legislative prescriptions, have established limitations on the degree of informality with which an arbitration can be carried out. Minimum procedural safeguards have been established which must be followed in order for an arbitration to be valid.
However, the parties may still alter these limits under the terms of the agreement, or by waiver while the arbitration is proceeding. The validity of an arbitration may be attacked at various stages of the proceedings by different methods. After an award is granted by the arbitrators it can be avoided on a number of grounds. This article deals with some of those grounds, namely fraud, bias, misconduct, and partiality.