Legal Opinion
Hottle v. BDO Seidman, LLP
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided December 24, 2002No. AC 22636; AC 22666PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*273 Opinion
PETERS, J.
The Federal Arbitration Act (arbitration act), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., establishes a federal policy favoring arbitration. These appeals raise the question of whether an arbitration panel is disqualified because of structural bias if the panel consists only of partners in the accounting firm. The trial court concluded that an arbitration agreement including such a description of eligible arbitrators was enforceable against a claimant who was a former member of the partnership. We agree.
These appeals arise out of a dispute over the payment of compensation between the plaintiff,…
2Cases cited25 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
- Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. CasarottoSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. DobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance v. Underwriters at Lloyd's & Companies CollectiveSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Hottle v. BDO Seidman, LLPSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- All Seasons Services, Inc. v. GuildnerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Ungerland v. MORGAN STANLEY AND CO., INC.Connecticut Superior Court · 2010
- Pendergast v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLCDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2024