evident partiality standard in Texas

2011However, whether the party asserting evident partiality would have actually objected to the undisclosed information is not an element of the evident-partiality standard. “[E]vi-dent partiality is established from the nondisclosure itself, regardless of whether the nondisclosed information necessarily establishes partiality or bias.” TUCO, 960 S.W.2d at 636 .

2011However, whether the party asserting evident partiality would have actually objected to the undisclosed information is not an element of the evident-partiality standard. “[E]vident partiality is established from the nondisclosure itself , regardless of whether the nondisclosed information necessarily establishes partiality or bias.” TUCO , 960 S.W.2d at 636 .

2025The evident-partiality standard is met if an arbitrator fails to disclose facts that “might, to an objective observer, create a reasonable impression of the arbitrator’s partiality.” Tenaska Energy, Inc. v. Ponderosa Pine Energy, LLC, 437 S.W.3d 518, 525 (Tex. 2014).

2014See Tenaska Energy, 437 S.W.3d at 525 (involving evident partiality claim arising from arbitrator’s failure to disclose the full extent of his business relationship with party’s attorneys); TUCO, 960 S.W.2d at 637 (concerning neutral arbitrator’s failure to disclose a referral he received from a partisan arbitrator’s law firm).

2014Likewise, we addressed waiver of an evident partiality challenge in Bossley, 79 S.W.3d at 33 .

2014Likewise, we addressed waiver of an evident partiality challenge in Bossley, 79 S.W.3d at 33 .

2025The court of appeals concluded that the communications between Rando and BAC were “non-substantive and [did] not rise to the level of material fact requiring disclosure.” ___ S.W.3d ___, 2024 WL 187445 , at *5 (citing Forest Oil Corp. v. El Rucio Land & Cattle Co., 518 S.W.3d 422, 431 (Tex. 2017)). 2 II A court has a statutory obligation to vacate an arbitration award if “the rights of a party were prejudiced by . . . evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral arbitrator.” TEX.

2019We also applied the evident partiality rule in Novoa v. Viramontes, 553 S.W.3d 45, 53-54 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2018, no pet.).

2012But see Commonwealth Coatings, 393 U.S. at 149 , 89 S.Ct. 337 (Black, J.) (plurality op.) (describing the AAA disclosure guidelines as ‘highly significant' to the evident partiality analysis); New Regency Prods., Inc. v. Nippon Herald Films, Inc., 501 F.3d 1101, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2007) (relying on ethical and arbitral rules as persuasive authority)).