Seattle Packaging Corp. v. Barnard
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtKennedy, C.J.
— Peijury materially related to an issue of consequence in an arbitration proceeding constitutes fraud in the procurement of an arbitration award within the meaning of RCW 7.04.160, and requires vacatur if substantial rights of a party were prejudiced thereby. A party seeking vacatur of an arbitration award on grounds of peijury must (1) show by clear and convincing evidence that perjury materially related to an issue of consequence in the arbitration proceeding was in fact committed; (2) demon*484strate that the alleged perjury could not reasonably have been discovered in the exercise of due…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- James W. Bonar and Beverly J. Bonar v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., John S. Mc Nally, Jr., Ed LeavenworthCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
- Roni K. Dogherra v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Barnett v. HicksWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Price v. Farmers Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Price v. Farmers InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Low v. MINICHINOHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2011
- Low v. MINICHINOHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2011
- Peak Billing v. Mountain Sleep DiagnosticsColorado Court of Appeals · 2020
- Richard Jensen And Jensen Enterprises, Inc., App v. John Misner, RespCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
- Seattle Packaging Corp. v. BarnardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.