Howard University v. Metropolitan Campus Police Officer's Union

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that “a party that does not object- to the arbi trator’s jurisdiction during the arbitration may not later do so in court” (emphasis added)
• explaining that an arbitrator’s erroneously drawn negative inference would not “approach in gravity the type of error that justifies vacating an arbitration award for misconduct”
• finding that where claimant was able to have others testify about allegedly privileged documents, there was no fatal defect under Section 10(a)(3) to vacate the award
• explaining that even erroneously drawing a negative inference from a refusal to testify does not “approach in gravity the type of error that justifies vacating an arbitration award for 19 misconduct”
• noting that the federal circuits are in agreement that objections to jurisdiction must be made at the arbitration proceeding in order to be presented to a reviewing court, and citing cases from five other circuits
• declining to vacate award under Section 10(a)(3) where other witnesses testified about allegedly privileged documents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).