Section 12. (a) Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award if:—
(1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;
(2) there was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, or corruption in any of the arbitrators, or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party;
(3) the arbitrators exceeded their powers;
(4) the arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of section five, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party; or
(5) there was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under section two and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection; but the fact that the relief was such that it 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.
(b) An application under this section shall be made within thirty days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, but, if such application is predicated upon corruption, fraud, or other undue means, it shall be made within thirty days after such grounds are known or should have been known.
(c) In vacating the award on grounds other than stated in clause (5) of paragraph (a) the court may order a rehearing before new arbitrators chosen as provided in the agreement, or in the absence thereof, by the court in accordance with section three, or if the award is vacated on grounds set forth in clauses (3) and (4) of paragraph (a) the court may order a rehearing before the arbitrators who made the award or their successors appointed in accordance with section three. The time within which the agreement requires the award to be made shall be applicable to the rehearing and shall commence from the date of the order.
(d) If the application to vacate an award is denied and no motion to modify or correct the award is pending, the court shall confirm the award.
Katz, Nannis & Solomon, P.C. v. Levine, 46 N.E.3d 541 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 10דWe decide that the grounds of judicial review are limited to those delineated in G. L. c. 251, §§ 12 and 13. Background. The defendant Bruce C.”
Buffalo-Water 1, LLC v. Fid. Real Est. Co., LLC, 111 N.E.3d 266 (Mass. 2018). · cites it 4דBad faith is not a statutory ground for invalidating arbitrations under the Massachusetts Uniform Arbitration Act for Commercial Disputes, G. L. c. 251, § 12 ( a ) (MAA), but the MAA does require courts to vacate arbitration awards where "there was evident partiality by an…”
Superadio Ltd. P'ship v. Winstar Radio Prods., LLC, 844 N.E.2d 246 (Mass. 2006). · cites it 5דThe bases for review are set forth *334 in G. L. c. 251, § 12. Judicial intervention is permitted where an award “was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means,” § 12 (a) (1), or where the “arbitrators exceeded their powers,” § 12 (a) (3).”
City of Lawrence v. Falzarano, 402 N.E.2d 1017 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 4דG. L. c. 251, § 12 (a) (3) and (a) (5). Falzarano filed a separate application in the same court to confirm the award.”
Hague v. Piva, 808 N.E.2d 843 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 8דThe judge determined that the FAB had refused to hear evidence material to the controversy (G. L. c. 251, § 12[a][4]) and, rather than ordering another arbitration, restored the matter to the Superior Court trial list.”
M. O'Connor Contracting, Inc. v. City of Brockton, 809 N.E.2d 1062 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 5דThe city countered with a motion, pursuant to G. L. c. 251, § 12, to reconsider the court order compelling arbitration and to vacate the award.”
Connecticut Valley Sanitary Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Zielinski, 763 N.E.2d 1080 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 4ד8 On December 7, 1995, in the ongoing proceeding, a Superior Court judge, acting pursuant to G. L. c. 251, § 12 (a) (3), vacated the portion of the modified award relating to the operator costs, finding that the arbitrators were without authority to take the additional evidence…”
Bailey v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins., 505 N.E.2d 908 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 3דThere was a right to review of the arbitrator’s decision pursuant to G. L. c. 251, § 12. As far as we know, no such review was sought.”
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Malacaria, 662 N.E.2d 241 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 6דNonetheless, Lumbermens’ appeal fails because (1) it did not affirmatively and timely assert before the arbitration panel that it was contesting coverage as required by the rules governing arbitration proceedings; and (2) it did not seek relief pursuant to G. L. c. 251, §§ 12…”
Maltz v. Smith Barney, Inc., 427 Mass. 560 (Mass. 1998). · cites it 4דThe plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court, dismissing their application to modify or to vacate an arbitration award brought pursuant to G. L. c. 251, §§ 12 and 13 (Uniform Arbitration Act for Commercial Disputes).”
Beacon Towers Condo. Trust v. Alex, 42 N.E.3d 1144 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 2דAs set forth in G. L. c. 251, § 12, we review an arbitration award only to determine whether it “was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means,” whether the arbitrator was evidently partial, or whether the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his or her authority.”
Marino v. Tagaris, 480 N.E.2d 286 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 2ד8 She states that by the time she was aware of that right, the thirty days for doing so (G. L. c. 251, § 12 [b]) had long since elapsed, and that she did not challenge the award only because she was unaware that it was possible to do so.”
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Malacaria, 662 N.E.2d 241 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). “Nonetheless, Lumbermens’ appeal fails because (1) it did not affirmatively and timely assert before the arbitration panel that it was contesting coverage as required by the rules governing arbitration proceedings; and (2) it did not seek relief pursuant to G. L. c. 251, §§ 12…”
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Malacaria, 662 N.E.2d 241 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). “Nonetheless, Lumbermens’ appeal fails because (1) it did not affirmatively and timely assert before the arbitration panel that it was contesting coverage as required by the rules governing arbitration proceedings; and (2) it did not seek relief pursuant to G. L. c. 251, §§ 12…”
Hague v. Piva, 808 N.E.2d 843 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “The judge determined that the FAB had refused to hear evidence material to the controversy (G. L. c. 251, § 12[a][4]) and, rather than ordering another arbitration, restored the matter to the Superior Court trial list.”
M. O'Connor Contracting, Inc. v. City of Brockton, 809 N.E.2d 1062 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “The city countered with a motion, pursuant to G. L. c. 251, § 12, to reconsider the court order compelling arbitration and to vacate the award.”
M. O'Connor Contracting, Inc. v. City of Brockton, 809 N.E.2d 1062 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “The city countered with a motion, pursuant to G. L. c. 251, § 12, to reconsider the court order compelling arbitration and to vacate the award.”
M. O'Connor Contracting, Inc. v. City of Brockton, 809 N.E.2d 1062 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “The city countered with a motion, pursuant to G. L. c. 251, § 12, to reconsider the court order compelling arbitration and to vacate the award.”
Hague v. Piva, 808 N.E.2d 843 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “The judge determined that the FAB had refused to hear evidence material to the controversy (G. L. c. 251, § 12[a][4]) and, rather than ordering another arbitration, restored the matter to the Superior Court trial list.”
Hague v. Piva, 808 N.E.2d 843 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “The judge determined that the FAB had refused to hear evidence material to the controversy (G. L. c. 251, § 12[a][4]) and, rather than ordering another arbitration, restored the matter to the Superior Court trial list.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.