Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« This Week in The National Law Journal | Main | Justice Department Sues Arizona »

July 06, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20134853d340c970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference D.C. Appeals Court Finds Limits on Arbitration Review:

Comments

Jeff J.

Good question. Subsection 23 (b) of the NCCUSL and the D.C. Uniform Arbitration Act, the provision at the heart of your question, differ greatly.

Subsection 23 (b) in NCCUSL’s 2000 revision provided: "A [motion] under this section must be filed within 90 days after the [movant] receives notice of the award pursuant to Section 19 or within 90 days after the [movant] receives notice of a modified or corrected award pursuant to Section 20, unless the [movant] alleges that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means, in which case the [motion] must be made within 90 days after the ground is known or by the exercise of reasonable care would have been known by the [movant]."

Subsection 23 (b) of the D.C. Uniform Arbitration Act provided: “The court may vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding on other reasonable ground.”

As the court notes in the opinion, which is now linked to in this post, "When and why subsection (b) was changed to reflect the current language is a mystery; there is no legislative history explaining the substitution of the existing subsection (b) for the NCCUSL’s subsection (b)."

Avon

What would be really interesting to know (for those of us not in D.C., anyway) is exactly what the new DC statute did that the 2000 NCCUSL outline doesn't.

Without knowing how the "or other reasonable grounds" clause compares with the national standard, we're all clueless as to whether this court decision bears any relevance.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements