435.370. Hearing. — Unless otherwise provided by the agreement:
(1) The arbitrators shall appoint a time and place for the hearing and cause notification to the parties to be served personally or by registered mail not less than five days before the hearing. Appearance at the hearing waives such notice. The arbitrators may adjourn the hearing from time to time as necessary and, on request of a party and for good cause, or upon their own motion may postpone the hearing to a time not later than the date fixed by the agreement for making the award unless the parties consent to a later date. The arbitrators may hear and determine the controversy upon the evidence produced notwithstanding the failure of a party duly notified to appear. The court on application may direct the arbitrators to proceed promptly with the hearing and determination of the controversy.
(2) The parties are entitled to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing.
(3) The hearing shall be conducted by all the arbitrators but a majority may determine any question and render a final award. If, during the course of the hearing, an arbitrator for any reason ceases to act, the remaining arbitrator or arbitrators appointed to act as neutrals may continue with the hearing and determination of the controversy.
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Greitens v. Am. Tobacco Co., 509 S.W.3d 726 (Mo. 2017).
· cites it 2× “ointed 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…”
Nat'l Avenue Bldg. Co. v. Stewart, 910 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “1(4), 13 which commands a trial court to vacate an arbitration award where the arbitrators “so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of section 435.370, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party.”
Jennifer A. Britt v. Jeremy M. Otto, 577 S.W.3d 133 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “tor 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…”
Jacobs v. Corley, 732 S.W.2d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “or 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…”
W. Waterproofing Co. v. Lindenwood Colleges, 662 S.W.2d 288 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “or 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…”
Est. of Sandefur v. Greenway, 898 S.W.2d 667 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “or 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…”
Scharf v. Kogan, 285 S.W.3d 362 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “1(4) RSMo 2000 provides that the court shall vacate an arbitration award upon application of a party where: The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefore or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so…”
Air Shield Remodelers, Inc. v. Biggs, 969 S.W.2d 315 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “ppointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (3) [t]he arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) [t]he arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear…”
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. Francis, 872 S.W.2d 484 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “ppointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (3) [t]he arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) [t]he arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear…”
Cornerstone Propane, L.P. v. Precision Investments, L.L.C., 126 S.W.3d 419 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “pointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; *424 (4) The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear…”
Heineman v. Charno, 877 S.W.2d 224 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Section 435.390, which authorizes modification or correction of awards, expressly provides that such awards are subject to the provisions of §§ 435.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.370(2) — 2 cases
Heineman v. Charno, 877 S.W.2d 224 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
“Section 435.390, which authorizes modification or correction of awards, expressly provides that such awards are subject to the provisions of §§ 435.”
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.