Boulevard Associates v. Seltzer Partnership

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that unless restricted by the agreement, appraisers are the final judges of both law and fact, “and an award will not be reviewed or set aside for mistake in either.”
• stating that the appraisers were acting within their authority in determining the valuation method as it was “exactly the type of decision that the parties had asked them to make and by which the parties agreed to be bound.”
• noting that “the scope of an appraisal provision was much more limited than the typical arbitration provision since the former provided only for resolution of issues of valuation and the latter provided for resolution of an entire controversy between the parties.”
• stating that the appraisers did not exceed their scope of authority in utilizing a valuation method wherein they considered the actual future use of the property, as the agreement did not restrict the appraisers’ ability to make a variety of decisions to set a value for the property
• “Limited judicial review also imposes finality in a contested matter. To permit anything but limited judicial review defeats the purpose of appraisal as well as arbitration.”
• scope of judicial review of an appraisal conducted pursuant to a private agreement analogous to that used to review private agreement providing for common law arbitration

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).