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.
27 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1921–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Gavingreen2 sentences2023Not every error of law by an arbitrator, however, merits subsequent court intervention. “[W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside.” [DAIIE, 416 Mich at 443 , quoting Howe v Patrons’ Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich Ltd, 216 Mich 560, 570 ; 185 NW 864 (1921).] Moreover, in determining whether there is legal 2022Where it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside. [DAIIE v Gavin, 416 Mich 407, 443 ; 331 NW2d 418 (1982) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “Any such error must be readily apparent on the face of the award without second-guessing the arbitrator’s thought processes, and the arbitrator’s findings of fac | 1 | 20 |
Howe v. Patrons' Mutual Fire Ins.green2 sentences2023Not every error of law by an arbitrator, however, merits subsequent court intervention. “[W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside.” [DAIIE, 416 Mich at 443 , quoting Howe v Patrons’ Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich Ltd, 216 Mich 560, 570 ; 185 NW 864 (1921).] Moreover, in determining whether there is legal 2023Not every error of law by an arbitrator, however, merits subsequent court intervention. “[W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside.” [DAIIE, 416 Mich at 443 , quoting Howe v Patrons’ Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich Ltd, 216 Mich 560, 570 ; 185 NW 864 (1921).] Moreover, in determining whether there is legal | 1 | 13 |
Dohanyos v. Detrex Corp.green1 sentence2016The character or seriousness of an error of law that will require a court of law to vacate an arbitration award must be so material or so substantial as to have governed the award, and the error must be one but for which the award would have been substantially otherwise. [Dohanyos, 217 Mich App at 176 (citations omitted).] To the extent that Santomauro raises constitutional concerns, our review is de novo. | 1 | 1 |
Nordlund & Associates, Inc. v. Village of Hesperiagreen2 sentences2014The fact that the relief could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.[5] An arbitrator exceeds his powers when he “act[s] beyond the material terms of the contract from which [he] primarily draw[s] [his] authority, or in contravention of controlling principles of law.”6 [W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a s 2014The fact that the relief could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.[5] An arbitrator exceeds his powers when he “act[s] beyond the material terms of the contract from which [he] primarily draw[s] [his] authority, or in contravention of controlling principles of law.”6 [W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a s | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Saveski v. Tiseo Architects, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Under MCL 691.1703(1)(d): “[T]he court shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if . . . [a]n arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.” “Arbitrators exceed their power when they act beyond the material terms of the contract from which they primarily draw their authority, or in contravention of controlling principles of law.” Saveski v Tiseo Architects, Inc, 261 Mich App 553, 554 ; 682 NW2d 542 (2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted). [W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, 2022Under MCL 691.1703(1)(d): “[T]he court shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if . . . [a]n arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.” “Arbitrators exceed their power when they act beyond the material terms of the contract from which they primarily draw their authority, or in contravention of controlling principles of law.” Saveski v Tiseo Architects, Inc, 261 Mich App 553, 554 ; 682 NW2d 542 (2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted). [W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, | 4 | 2014–2022 |
Hope-Jackson v. Washington
green
2 sentences2024Not every error of law by an arbitrator, however, mandates subsequent court intervention. [W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside. [Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).] Moreover, in evaluating whether there is legal error, a court cannot engage in a review of an arbitrator’s mental process 2024Not every error of law by an arbitrator, however, mandates subsequent court intervention. [W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside. [Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).] Moreover, in evaluating whether there is legal error, a court cannot engage in a review of an arbitrator’s mental process | 3 | 2019–2024 |
Washington v. Washington
green
2 sentences2023Not every error of law by an arbitrator, however, merits subsequent court intervention. “[W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside.” [DAIIE, 416 Mich at 443 , quoting Howe v Patrons’ Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich Ltd, 216 Mich 560, 570 ; 185 NW 864 (1921).] Moreover, in determining whether there is legal 2019Not every error of law by an arbitrator, however, merits subsequent court intervention. [W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the new award and decision will be set aside. [DAIIE, 416 Mich at 443 .] Moreover, in determining whether there is legal error, the court cannot engage in a review of an arbitrator’s mental process, Hope-Jackson | 3 | 2019–2023 |
Janet Lashar Eppel v. Christopher James Eppel
green
2 sentences2022Where it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside. [DAIIE v Gavin, 416 Mich 407, 443 ; 331 NW2d 418 (1982) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “Any such error must be readily apparent on the face of the award without second-guessing the arbitrator’s thought processes, and the arbitrator’s findings of fac 2022Where it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside. [DAIIE v Gavin, 416 Mich 407, 443 ; 331 NW2d 418 (1982) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “Any such error must be readily apparent on the face of the award without second-guessing the arbitrator’s thought processes, and the arbitrator’s findings of fac | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Kern v. Blethen-Coluni
green
1 sentence2016“To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) the error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must -3- have been made, the award and decision will be set | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ann Arbor v. AFSCME LOCAL 369
green
1 sentence2014The fact that the relief could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.[5] An arbitrator exceeds his powers when he “act[s] beyond the material terms of the contract from which [he] primarily draw[s] [his] authority, or in contravention of controlling principles of law.”6 [W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
City of Ann Arbor v. American Federation of State Employees Local 369
green
1 sentence2014The fact that the relief could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.[5] An arbitrator exceeds his powers when he “act[s] beyond the material terms of the contract from which [he] primarily draw[s] [his] authority, or in contravention of controlling principles of law.”6 [W]here it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Roseville Community School District v. Roseville Federation of Teachers
green
2 sentences1989In Roseville Community School Dist v Roseville Federation of Teachers, 137 Mich App 118, 123 ; 357 NW2d 829 (1984), lv gtd 422 Mich 940 (1985), lv dis per stipulation 422 Mich 940 (1986), a panel of this Court ruled that the Gavin standard of review did not apply to cases involving collective bargaining agreements. 1989In Roseville Community School Dist v Roseville Federation of Teachers, 137 Mich App 118, 123 ; 357 NW2d 829 (1984), lv gtd 422 Mich 940 (1985), lv dis per stipulation 422 Mich 940 (1986), a panel of this Court ruled that the Gavin standard of review did not apply to cases involving collective bargaining agreements. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Belen v. Allstate Insurance
green
1 sentence1989The standard of judicial review from the private arbitration award, as adopted in Gavin, supra, p 443 , quoting Howe v Patrons’ Mutual Fire Ins Co of Michigan, 216 Mich 560, 570 ; 185 NW 864 (1921), is: "[Wjhere it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside.” See also, Belen, supra, pp 644-645 ; The Hayman Co v | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Hayman Co. v. Brady Mechanical, Inc.
green
2 sentences1989The standard of judicial review from the private arbitration award, as adopted in Gavin, supra, p 443 , quoting Howe v Patrons’ Mutual Fire Ins Co of Michigan, 216 Mich 560, 570 ; 185 NW 864 (1921), is: "[Wjhere it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside.” See also, Belen, supra, pp 644-645 ; The Hayman Co v 1989The standard of judicial review from the private arbitration award, as adopted in Gavin, supra, p 443 , quoting Howe v Patrons’ Mutual Fire Ins Co of Michigan, 216 Mich 560, 570 ; 185 NW 864 (1921), is: "[Wjhere it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will be set aside.” See also, Belen, supra, pp 644-645 ; The Hayman Co v | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Stowe v. Mutual Home Builders Corp.
green
2 sentences1982This is such a case." (Emphasis added.) Howe , pp 569, 570. *440 In Stowe v Mutual Home Builders Corp, 252 Mich 492, 497 ; 233 NW 391 (1930), this Court vacated an arbitration award resulting from resolution of a dispute over the amount owed on a building contract. 1982This is such a case." (Emphasis added.) Howe , pp 569, 570. *440 In Stowe v Mutual Home Builders Corp, 252 Mich 492, 497 ; 233 NW 391 (1930), this Court vacated an arbitration award resulting from resolution of a dispute over the amount owed on a building contract. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Patrons' Mutual Fire Insurance v. Attorney General
neutral
1 sentence1921Co. v. Attorney General, supra, this exception indicated by the Dick Case should be added, that where it clearly appears on the face of the award or the reasons for the decision as stated, being substantially a part of the award, that the arbitrators through an error in law have been led to a wrong conclusion, and that, but for such error, a substantially different award must have been made, the award and decision will.be set aside. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.