Kruse v. Sands Brothers & Co., Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing a timely filed cross- petition to vacate based on the form of the cross-petition and finding that petitioner could not file a new motion to vacate after the three-month statutory time period had run
• discussing the policy that motions should not be deemed equivalent to pleadings for purposes of seeking vacatur and holding that “[a] party cannot initiate a challenge to an arbitration award by filing a complaint or an application”
• “Case law dealing with arbitrator misconduct in the consideration of evidence has focused exclusively on the arbitrators’ refusal to hear evidence, not their affirmative consideration of evidence.”
• “Respondents[] were required to file a Motion to Vacate, if they so desired, by September 18, 2022. Having failed to do so, they have lost the opportunity to make such a Motion.”
• “[E]ven a refusal to hear evidence does not necessarily require vacatur.”
• “Rule 81(a)(3)° of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, in part: ‘In proceedings under Title 9, U.S.C., relating to arbitration ... [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] apply only to the extent that matters of procedure are not provided for in those statutes.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).