Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Beattie v. Autostyle Plastics, Incgreen2 sentences2016This result would run contrary to our Supreme Court’s statement in Gavin, [416 Mich] at 429, that “[i]t is only the kind of legal error that is evident without scrutiny of intermediate mental indicia which remains reviewable.” Therefore, a trial court may not hunt for errors in an arbitrator’s explanation of how it determined who is liable under the arbitrated contract, and who owes what damages to whom. [Saveski v Tiseo Architects, Inc, 261 Mich App 553, 558 ; 682 NW2d 542 (2004).] Because the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is defined and established in accordance with the contract of the par 2016This result would run contrary to our Supreme Court’s statement in Gavin, [416 Mich] at 429, that “[i]t is only the kind of legal error that is evident without scrutiny of intermediate mental indicia which remains reviewable.” Therefore, a trial court may not hunt for errors in an arbitrator’s explanation of how it determined who is liable under the arbitrated contract, and who owes what damages to whom. [Saveski v Tiseo Architects, Inc, 261 Mich App 553, 558 ; 682 NW2d 542 (2004).] Because the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is defined and established in accordance with the contract of the par | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Gavin
green
2 sentences2006“It is only the kind of legal error that is evident without scrutiny of intermediate mental indicia which remains reviewable .. ..” Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exch v Gavin, 416 Mich 407, 429 ; 331 NW2d 418 (1982). 9 An arbitration award must be.....final, complete, and coextensive with the terms of the submission.” ’ ” Beattie, supra at 579 (citations omitted). 2006“It is only the kind of legal error that is evident without scrutiny of intermediate mental indicia which remains reviewable .. ..” Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exch v Gavin, 416 Mich 407, 429 ; 331 NW2d 418 (1982). 9 An arbitration award must be.....final, complete, and coextensive with the terms of the submission.” ’ ” Beattie, supra at 579 (citations omitted). | 3 | 2005–2018 |
Saveski v. Tiseo Architects, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016This result would run contrary to our Supreme Court’s statement in Gavin, [416 Mich] at 429, that “[i]t is only the kind of legal error that is evident without scrutiny of intermediate mental indicia which remains reviewable.” Therefore, a trial court may not hunt for errors in an arbitrator’s explanation of how it determined who is liable under the arbitrated contract, and who owes what damages to whom. [Saveski v Tiseo Architects, Inc, 261 Mich App 553, 558 ; 682 NW2d 542 (2004).] Because the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is defined and established in accordance with the contract of the par 2016This result would run contrary to our Supreme Court’s statement in Gavin, [416 Mich] at 429, that “[i]t is only the kind of legal error that is evident without scrutiny of intermediate mental indicia which remains reviewable.” Therefore, a trial court may not hunt for errors in an arbitrator’s explanation of how it determined who is liable under the arbitrated contract, and who owes what damages to whom. [Saveski v Tiseo Architects, Inc, 261 Mich App 553, 558 ; 682 NW2d 542 (2004).] Because the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is defined and established in accordance with the contract of the par | 2 | 2016–2024 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.