Legal Opinion
Hottle v. BDO Seidman, LLP
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 4, 2004No. SC 16941PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*696 Opinion
KATZ, J.
The principal issue raised by these consolidated, certified appeals1 is whether an arbitration clause, in a contract executed under New York law, is enforceable when it authorizes an arbitration panel consisting solely of directors and partners of one of the parties. We conclude that, under the facts of this case, the arbitration clause is enforceable under New York law and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court. Hottle v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 74 Conn. App. 271, 811 A.2d 745 (2002).
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following relevant facts and…
2Cases cited56 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. CasarottoSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Bender v. BenderSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- BDO Seidman, LLP v. BeeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2007
- D'ANTUONO v. Service Road Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2011
- Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance v. Underwriters at Lloyd's & Companies CollectiveSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Nussbaum v. Kimberly Timbers, Ltd.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.