Filhiol v. Schmidt
Citations
- 122 La. 701
- 48 So. 157
- 1909 La. LEXIS 602
Syllabus
<p>Mandamus (§ 57 *) — Prohibition (§ 5*) — Sus-pensive Appeal — Dismissal op INTERVENTION.</p> <p>Where, in a proceeding in which no conservatory writs have issued, an intervention is dismissed on exception, and an appeal allowed, such appeal can suspend nothing save the running of the delay within which the judgment appealed from would otherwise become unap-pealable ; and, as an intervention is not allowed to retard the principal suit, mandamus will not lie to compel the granting of an appeal which will operate to suspend proceedings in such suit, nor will prohibition lie to prohibit such proceedings pending an appeal from a judgment dismissing an intervention.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Mandamus, Dec. Dig. § 57 ;* Prohibition, Dec. Dig. § 5.*]</p> <p>’ (Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- denying vacatur based on manifest disregard of contract where the arbitrator “conclu[ded] that the text – the four corners of the Agreement – was dispositive . . . as the source of her substantive ruling”
- petitioner must do more than show “that the [arbitrator] committed an error” when seeking to vacate an award pursuant to § 10(a)(4)
- party seeking vacatur of arbitration award “bears the burden of proof, and the showing required to avoid confirmation is very high” (cleaned up)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.