observing that policies favoring obligation to arbitrate and conclusiveness of arbitration might not apply where obligation to arbitrate was infected by fraud, overreaching, undue pressure, or similar conduct on a representative union’s part
How later courts described this case
- observing that policies favoring obligation to arbitrate and conclusiveness of arbitration might not apply where obligation to arbitrate was infected by fraud, overreaching, undue pressure, or similar conduct on a representative union’s part
- holding that limited grounds on which judicial review of arbitration decisions is available does not bar giving such decisions preclusive effect
- Article I, section 10, notwithstanding, parties are free to negotiate agreements that have the effect of conferring immunity on one of them from action by the other — to hold otherwise would invalidate many arbitration agreements
- ‘“The court will enter judgment upon [an arbitration award], but not if... it appears that the arbitrators intended to follow the law and then based the award on a clear misapprehension concerning the law.” (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
See 3 Am. Jur. 892 , 919; decisions of benefit society, conclusiveness, note, 51 A.L.R. 1420 ; see, also, notes 104 A.L.R. 567 , 110 A.L.R. 142 ; 39 C.J., Master and servant, § 15. *Page 135