L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partYetka, Justice
I respectfully dissent. Although I concur with part 1 of the majority opinion, I would affirm the trial court’s decision in its entirety because the egregious acts of the defendants cut to the heart of the integrity of the entire judicial process. Moreover, it is my belief that the majority decision will weaken the ethical rules that govern our profession at a time when, if anything, the requirements of high ethical standards should be strengthened.
According to the majority, arbitrators may now conceal impermissible social or business contacts free of the prospect of personal liability to the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Forrester v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Gammel v. Ernst & ErnstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Baar v. TigermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Grane v. GraneAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986