Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Grimes)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, despite arbitrators’ “few references to [the parties’] intent,” evidence showed that they could not have been guided by parties’ intent
• concluding that the arbitral panel had impermissibly imposed its preferred policy notwithstanding its references to the parties’ intent, where the parties stipulated that they had formed no intent
• holding that a “foundational FAA principle [is] that arbitration is a matter of consent”
• holding that a party seeking vacatur of an arbitrator’s decision “must clear a high hurdle”
• holding that a party seeking vacatur of an arbitrator’s decision “must clear a high hurdle”
• holding that a party seeking vacatur of an arbitrator’s decision “must clear a high hurdle”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).