HH East Parcel, LLC v. Handy & Harman, Inc.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NORCOTT, J.
In this appeal, we consider the appropriate level of deference that the courts, in performing their de novo review of whether an arbitration award violates public policy, should give to the arbitrator’s factual findings. The defendant, Handy and Harman, Inc., appeals 1 from the judgment of the trial court granting the application of the plaintiff, HH East Parcel, LLC, to confirm, and denying the defendant’s application to vacate, an arbitration award rendered in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court, in confirming the award, improperly…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Garrity v. McCaskeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- O & G/O'Connell Joint Venture v. Chase Family Ltd. Partnership No. 3Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Schoonmaker v. Cummings & Lockwood of Connecticut, P.C.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Town of Groton v. United Steelworkers of AmericaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Nafta Traders, Inc. v. QuinnTexas Supreme Court · 2011
- Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Development Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2010
- AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565 v. Department of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- City of Hartford v. Hartford Municipal Employees Ass'nConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Katz, Nannis & Solomon, P.C. v. LevineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.