PAUL K. SORREN, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD A. KUMBLE AND PRUDENTIAL-BACHE SECURITIES, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed confirmation of arbitration award, holding that an arbitration panel's evidentiary rulings are not subject to judicial review under the 'undue means' provision of the arbitration acts.
An arbitration panel's admission of evidence during proceedings, even if objectionable, does not constitute 'undue means' warranting vacation of an arbitration award.
[1] An arbitration panel's evidentiary rulings during proceedings do not constitute 'undue means' under 9 U.S.C. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The panel is the sole and final judge of the evidence and the weight to be given it.”
Describing the limited standard of judicial review of arbitration panel decisions.
Paul Sorren objected to the admission of evidence during arbitration proceedings against Richard Kumble and Prudential-Bache Securities, claiming the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Challenge To Arbitration Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Paul Sorren appeals a final judgment confirming an arbitration award. He contends that the arbitration panel erroneously admitted a piece of evidence, over objection, which he says was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial to his position. He argues that the award should have been set aside on the theory that “the award was procured by ... undue means.” 9 U.S.C. § 10; see also § 682.13(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989).
It is well settled that evidentiary rulings in arbitration proceedings are within the province of the arbitration panel. “The standard of judicial review of an arbitration panel’s decision is extremely limited. The panel is the sole and final judge of the evidence and the weight to be given it.” Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Shuman, 483 So. 2d 888, 889 (Fla.3d DCA 1986). The “undue means” provision of the federal and state arbitration acts should be read in pari materia with the statutory phrase: an award may be set aside “[wjhere the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). Without attempting a comprehensive definition, we think “undue means” refers to such matters as ex parte communications or undisclosed relationships between an arbitrator and one of the contestants. See generally Overseas Private Inv. Corp. v. Anaconda Co., 418 F.Supp. 107 (D.D.C.1976). It does not cover a circumstance where evidence .is offered to the arbitration panel during its proceedings. Drayer v. Krasner, 572 F. 2d 348, 352 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 948, 98 S.Ct. 2855, 56 L.Ed.2d 791 (1978).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Worthie E. Kinsey, Jr., 655 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…. Moreover, they are the final judges of such matters as the admissibility and relevance of evidence. See, e.g., Hoteles Condado Beach, La Concha and Convention Center v. Union De Tronquistas Local 901, 763 F. 2d 34 (1st Cir.1985); Sorren v. Kumble, 578 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Lake County Education Association v. School Board of Lake County, 360 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 366 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1978). “[T]he standard of judicial review applicable to challenges of an arbitration award is ver…
-
Fraternal Order OF Police v. City OF Miami, 598 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (same). The standard of judicial review of an arbitration panel’s decision is extremely limited and a high degree of conclusiveness attaches to the arbitration panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Sorren v. Kumble, 578 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); St. Johns Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Timoney, 524 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Shuman, 483 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); City of West Palm Beach v. Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association,…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Ins. v. First Floridian Auto & Home Ins. Co., 803 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Among district court opinions articulating similar views before section 627.062(6) was enacted are Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Kinsey, 655 So. 2d 1191, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Sorren v. Kumble, 578 So. 2d 836, 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); and Broward County Paraprofessional Association v. McComb, 394 So. 2d 471, 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (“An arbitrator’s award is entitled to a high degree of conclusiveness....”). The Legislature is presumed to know existing l…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Drayer v. Krasner, 572 F.2d 348 (2d Cir. 1978)
- Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc. v. Shuman, 483 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Gubelman v. United States, 436 U.S. 948 (U.S. 1978)
- Mason v. Gagnon, 436 U.S. 948 (U.S. 1978)