Chandler v. Metomkin Bank & Trust Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that arbitration was mandatory only where claimant could effectively vindicate her statutory rights in the arbitration
• stating that where explanation, if given, “would have strained credulity,” lack of written opinion may be considered in finding manifest disregard
• explaining that “when a reviewing court is inclined to hold that an arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law, the failure of the arbitrators to explain the award can be taken into account”
• vacating an award where arbitrators “manifestly disregarded the law or the evidence or both”
• stating “we believe that when a reviewing court is inclined to hold that an arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law, the failure of the arbitrators to explain the award can be taken into account”
• “[W]e doubt whether even under a strict construction of the meaning of manifest disregard, it is necessary for arbitrators to state that they are deliberately ignoring the law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).