5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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 |
|---|---|---|
Buzas Baseball, Inc. v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc.green2 sentences2022Id. at 946, 951 . ¶32 We prefaced our analysis by admitting that we addressed the manifest disregard standard “because it was raised by Buzas Baseball and relied upon by the trial court below.” Id. at 951 n.8. 2022Id. at 946, 951 . ¶32 We prefaced our analysis by admitting that we addressed the manifest disregard standard “because it was raised by Buzas Baseball and relied upon by the trial court below.” Id. at 951 n.8. | 2 | 2 |
Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Adelgreen2 sentences2022Id. ¶ 16. ¶34 The manifest disregard standard assumed its current form in Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Adel, 2016 UT 24 , 378 P.3d 93 . 2022Id. ¶ 16. ¶34 The manifest disregard standard assumed its current form in Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Adel, 2016 UT 24 , 378 P.3d 93 . | 1 | 2 |
Ahhmigo v. Synergygreen2 sentences2022See Ahhmigo, LLC v. Synergy Co. of Utah, 2022 UT 4 , 506 P.3d 536 . ¶76 In Ahhmigo, we explained that the manifest disregard standard had its genesis in United States Supreme Court dicta. 2022See Ahhmigo, LLC v. Synergy Co. of Utah, 2022 UT 4 , 506 P.3d 536 . ¶76 In Ahhmigo, we explained that the manifest disregard standard had its genesis in United States Supreme Court dicta. | 1 | 2 |
Coffee Beanery, Ltd. v. WW, L.L.C.green1 sentence2022See Coffee Beanery, 300 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Utility Trailer Sales of Salt Lake, Inc. v. Fakegreen1 sentence2022Trailer Sales of Salt Lake, Inc. v. Fake, 740 P.2d 1327, 1329 (Utah 1987) (“As a general rule, awards will not be disturbed on account of irregularities or informalities, or because the court does not agree with the award, so long as the proceeding has been fair and honest and the substantial rights of the parties have been respected.”). ¶44 In this context, the manifest disregard standard might be better viewed as a tool to inquire whether the arbitrator deprived the parties of their bargained-for arbitration by disregarding the law that the parties agreed would apply. | 1 | 1 |
Marbury v. Madisongreen1 sentence2016And where an arbitrator’s authority derives entirely from statutes, we see no reason to defer to the arbitrator’s interpretation of those statutes.4 After all, “[i]t is emphatically the . . . duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and without de novo review of the scope of arbitrators’ authority under the arbitration act, we will have difficulty fulfilling our duty to interpret that act and guide the decisions of future arbitrators. 3 We acknowledge that several scholars and courts have raised concerns about the manifest | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
green
1 sentence2022Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 , 585–87 (2008); Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 , 672 n.3 (2010), ―creat[ing] a split among jurisdictions as to whether the manifest disregard standard remains a viable ground for vacatur‖ under the Federal Arbitration Act, Ahhmigo, 2022 UT 4, ¶ 28 (citing cases). ¶77 Ahhmigo also addressed the standard‘s precarious position in our case law. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 , 585–87 (2008); Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 , 672 n.3 (2010), ―creat[ing] a split among jurisdictions as to whether the manifest disregard standard remains a viable ground for vacatur‖ under the Federal Arbitration Act, Ahhmigo, 2022 UT 4, ¶ 28 (citing cases). ¶77 Ahhmigo also addressed the standard‘s precarious position in our case law. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Wilko v. Swan
red
1 sentence2022Id. ¶ 26 (discussing Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 , 436–37 (1953)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Pacific Development L.C. v. Orton
green
2 sentences2022And while we applied it to conclude that the trial court had erred in modifying the arbitration award because “nothing in the record establishe[d] that the arbitrators knew of the rule prohibiting double recovery and disregarded it,” id. at 951 , we expressly “reserve[d] the issue of whether [the manifest disregard standard] [wa]s recognized in Utah,” id. at 951 n.8. ¶33 We next discussed the manifest disregard standard in Pacific Development, L.C. v. Orton, 2001 UT 36 , 23 P.3d 1035 . 2022And while we applied it to conclude that the trial court had erred in modifying the arbitration award because “nothing in the record establishe[d] that the arbitrators knew of the rule prohibiting double recovery and disregarded it,” id. at 951 , we expressly “reserve[d] the issue of whether [the manifest disregard standard] [wa]s recognized in Utah,” id. at 951 n.8. ¶33 We next discussed the manifest disregard standard in Pacific Development, L.C. v. Orton, 2001 UT 36 , 23 P.3d 1035 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Shaun S. Adel & Consumer Protection Group, LLC
green
2 sentences2016We are not deciding this issue on the merits, however, as it has not been briefed to us. . 'For a summary of the facts underlying the litigation, see Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Consumer Protection Group, LLC, 2012 UT 55 , M 2-5, 285 P.3d 1219 . , We acknowledge that several scholars and courts have raised concerns about the manifest disregard standard, concluding it has "turned the law into a puzzle." See, eg., Kenneth R. 2016We are not deciding this issue on the merits, however, as it has not been briefed to us. . 'For a summary of the facts underlying the litigation, see Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Consumer Protection Group, LLC, 2012 UT 55 , M 2-5, 285 P.3d 1219 . , We acknowledge that several scholars and courts have raised concerns about the manifest disregard standard, concluding it has "turned the law into a puzzle." See, eg., Kenneth R. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.