holding that public policy is “well defined and dominant[,] ... ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that public policy is “well defined and dominant[,] ... ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.”
- holding that the essence test clearly does not permit the reviewing court "to intrude into the domain of the arbitrator and determine whether an award is 'manifestly unreasonable' "
- emphasizing that the essence test requires more deference than would a "manifestly unreasonable" standard of review and remanding for consideration of narrow public policy exception
- holding to qualify for the sole exception to the essence test, public policy must be well-defined, dominant, and easily referenced in legal precedent
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice EAKIN,
dissenting.
I join the Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Castille. While I have previously recognized the precedence of the core functions exception, I too have no firm opposition to its demise. However, I cannot agree to the sua sponte implementation of a public policy exception which was not raised by the parties and on which we have received no advocacy on either side.