exercising discretion to review unpreserved challenge to regulations that court determined “violate[d] a clear and dominant public policy”
How later courts described this case
- exercising discretion to review unpreserved challenge to regulations that court determined “violate[d] a clear and dominant public policy”
- "An exception has been recognized to the requirement that an arbitration award can be vacated only on statutory grounds. It is well settled that an ‘arbitration award may not stand if it contravenes paramount considerations of public policy.' ”
- under uniform act, in determining whether arbitrator exceeded his authority, appeals court does not review arbitrator’s award on the merits, only whether arbitrator ruled on matters within the scope of the arbitration agreement
- “If an arbitrator ‘rules only on matters within the scope of the governing arbitration clauses, he [will] not exceed his authority . . . .’” (alterations in original) (quoting Tauber, 738 A.2d at 1217 )
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STEADMAN, Senior Judge,
concurring:
Principles of judicial and equitable es-toppel applicable to private parties do not translate readily where the government is a litigant and considerations of protection of the public físc and the public interest are involved. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Gould, 852 A.2d 50, 56-57 (D.C. 2004); Mamo v. District of Columbia, 934 A.2d 876, 386-87 (2007). However, in the particular and special circumstances presented here, coupled with the discretionary nature of permitting new arguments to be made even by the government for the first time on appeal, see, e.g., District of Columbia v. Wical Ltd. P’ship, 630 A.2d 174, 182-84 (D.C.1993), I concur in the ultimate conclusion that the District at this point may not challenge the validity of the original 1997 agreement, and I otherwise join the opinion of the court.