Legal Opinion

Aurandt v. Hire

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 3, 1959No. Civ. 23184PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J. pro tem. *

We have concluded that the trial court had no authority either to deny or grant plaintiff’s motion to confirm the award in his favor, nor authority to vacate the award on the defendants’ motion, and that as a consequence, the orders denying plaintiff’s motion and granting defendants’ motion should be reversed.

We become more concerned than usual with procedural matters, on this appeal. Beginning with the first steps taken in the trial court, after the arbitration procedures had resulted in an award, we note that the plaintiff filed a notice of motion to confirm the award…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gilbert v. BurnstineNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Robinson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. United Rubber WorkersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. Kerr v. NelsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Pleaters & Stitchers Ass'n v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Goossen v. AdairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Krystoff v. KALAMA LAND CO., LTD.Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API