Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., Bear, Stearns Securities Corp., and Richard Harriton v. 1109580 Ontario, Inc., Docket No. 04-3632-Cv

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that arbitration panel’s decision to not apply collateral estoppel doctrine “did not amount to manifest disregard of the law” because “[i]n view of the differing results reached by different [prior] panels, the arbitrators had discretion to apply collateral estoppel or not”
• observing that an arbitration decision may give rise to collateral estoppel in certain circumstances
• observing that under certain conditions, “[a]n arbitration decision may effect collateral estoppel in a later litigation or arbitration if the proponent can show with clarity and certainty that the same issues were resolved” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Collateral estoppel is permissible as to a given issue if (1) the identical issue was raised in a previous proceeding; (2
• “The arbitration decision must be confirmed if there is any basis for upholding the decision and if there is even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.”
• “[T]he arbitrators had discretion to apply collateral estoppel or not”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).