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.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 2003–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stack v. Karavan Trailers, Inc.green2 sentences2023See Stack v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 864 A.2d 551, 556 (Pa. Super. 2004). 2005The policy underlying the functus officio doctrine is, “an unwillingness to permit one who is not a judicial officer and who acts informally and sporadically, to reexamine a final decision which he has already rendered, because of the potential evil of outside communication and unilateral influence which might affect a new conclusion.” Stack, 864 A.2d at 556 (quoting La Vale Plaza, 378 F.2d at 572 ). | 2 | 3 |
Colonial Penn Insurance v. Omaha Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2006Its opinion relied on Colonial Penn insurance Co. v. Omaha Indemnity Co., 943 F.2d 327, 332 (3d Cir. 1991), which recognized three exceptions to the functus officio doctrine: (1) an arbitrator may correct a mistake which is apparent on the face of the award; (2) where the award does not adjudicate an issue which has been submitted, it remains open for the arbitrator to decide this issue in a subsequent determination; and (3) where the award, although seemingly complete, leaves doubt whether the submission has been fully executed, an ambiguity arises which the arbitrator is entitled to clarify. 2004Colonial Penn Insurance Company v. Omaha Indemnity Company, 943 F.2d 327 , 332 (3d. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Menahga Education Ass'n v. Menahga Independent School District No. 821
green
1 sentence2006No. 821, 568 N.W.2d 863 , 867 n.3 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
La Vale Plaza, Inc., a New York Corporation v. R. S. Noonan, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation
green
2 sentences2005The policy underlying the functus officio doctrine is, “an unwillingness to permit one who is not a judicial officer and who acts informally and sporadically, to reexamine a final decision which he has already rendered, because of the potential evil of outside communication and unilateral influence which might affect a new conclusion.” Stack, 864 A.2d at 556 (quoting La Vale Plaza, 378 F.2d at 572 ). 2005The policy underlying the functus officio doctrine is, “an unwillingness to permit one who is not a judicial officer and who acts informally and sporadically, to reexamine a final decision which he has already rendered, because of the potential evil of outside communication and unilateral influence which might affect a new conclusion.” Stack, 864 A.2d at 556 (quoting La Vale Plaza, 378 F.2d at 572 ). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hartley v. Henderson
green
2 sentences2004Cir.1967) (citing Hartley v. Henderson, 189 Pa. 277 , 42 A. 198 (1899)). ¶ 11 However, three specific exceptions to the functus officio doctrine have been recognized: (1) an arbitrator can correct a mistake which is apparent on the face of his award; (2) where the award does not adjudicate an issue which has been submitted, then as to such issue the arbitrator has not exhausted his function and it remains open to him for subsequent determination; and (3)where the award, although seemingly complete, leaves doubt whether the submission has been fully executed, an ambiguity arises which the arbit 2004Cir.1967) (citing Hartley v. Henderson, 189 Pa. 277 , 42 A. 198 (1899)). ¶ 11 However, three specific exceptions to the functus officio doctrine have been recognized: (1) an arbitrator can correct a mistake which is apparent on the face of his award; (2) where the award does not adjudicate an issue which has been submitted, then as to such issue the arbitrator has not exhausted his function and it remains open to him for subsequent determination; and (3)where the award, although seemingly complete, leaves doubt whether the submission has been fully executed, an ambiguity arises which the arbit | 1 | 2004–2004 |
P G Metals Co. v. Hofkin
green
2 sentences2004P G Metals Co. v. Hofkin, 420 Pa. 620 , 218 A.2d 238 (1966). ****** It is an equally fundamental common law principle that once an arbitrator has made and published a final award his authority is exhausted and he is functus officio and can do nothing more in regard to the subject matter of the arbitration. 2004P G Metals Co. v. Hofkin, 420 Pa. 620 , 218 A.2d 238 (1966). ****** It is an equally fundamental common law principle that once an arbitrator has made and published a final award his authority is exhausted and he is functus officio and can do nothing more in regard to the subject matter of the arbitration. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
cluster 567618
green
2 sentences2003Colonial Penn, supra. The functus officio doctrine dictated that the subsequent award be vacated. 2003Id. at 333 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.