Legal Opinion
In re the Arbitration between McMahan & Co. & Dunn NewFund I, Ltd.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 24, 1997PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Wallach, J.
On this appeal, we are called upon to consider the proper scope of judicial review of a charge of fundamental unfairness in the conduct of a massive arbitration proceeding over a period of 41/2 years, with at least 24 hearing days.
*3A five-member arbitration panel, convened under the rules of the American Stock Exchange and concededly subject to the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, awarded the New-Fund respondents damages against petitioner in excess of $1.5 million on a claim that the latter had breached an oral agreement to provide financial liquidity…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kincade v. KincadeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Bowles Financial Group, Inc. v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Conference Board v. Zcon Builders, Individually and D/B/A Sharon Hill Corporation Sharon Hill CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Cunard Line Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 1989
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hoffman v. Cargill, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1997
- Miro Leisure Corp. v. Prudence Orla, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Hoffman v. Cargill, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1999
- TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'nDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2017
- Cherry v. New York State Insurance FundAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.