In any of the following cases, the court of common pleas shall make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration if:
(A) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
(B) There was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators, or any of them.
(C) The arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
(D) The arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
If an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired, the court may direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.
Adams Cty./Ohio Valley Local Sch. v. OAPSE/AFSCME, Local 572, 2017 Ohio 6929 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 17דion, fraud, or undue means; (2) there was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators, or any of them; (3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent…”
N. Ohio Sewer Contractors, Inc. v. Bradley Dev. Co., 825 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 22ד1 Standard of Review {¶ 11} Ohio public policy encourages the resolution of disputes through arbitration. Kelm v. Kelm (1993), 68 Ohio St.”
Hughes v. Hughes, 2020 Ohio 4653 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 17ד1 {¶ 5} On December 12, 2018, appellant filed a motion pursuant to R.C. 2711.10 and 2711.13 asking the common pleas court to vacate the arbitrator's award to the extent it found appellant committed a breach of trust and suspended him as co-trustee.”
City of Piqua v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc., 924 N.E.2d 876 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 11ד” {¶ 13} “The trial court erred to the prejudice of the appellant when it misapplied the test for overturning an arbitrator’s award pursuant to O.R.C. 2711.10.” {¶ 14} The union’s essential contention in the first four assignments of error is that the arbitrator did not exceed…”
Carothers v. Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, L.L.P., 2023 Ohio 1907 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 17ד{¶ 16} Conversely, “‘if the arbitrator has not exceeded his or her powers, the award should not be vacated or modified, absent any of the other circumstances in R.C. 2711.10 and 2711.11 (such as corruption, fraud, misconduct, partiality, or material mistake).”
Miller v. Gunckle, 775 N.E.2d 475 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 7ד(1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 708, 711 , 590 N.E.2d 1242 .”
Dayton City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Dayton Edn. Assn., 2018 Ohio 4350 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 12דIn either situation, the common pleas court is required to grant the order to confirm unless the court vacates, modifies, or corrects the award under R.C. 2711.10 or R.C. 2711.11. {¶ 37} R.C.”
Miller v. Gunckle, 2002 Ohio 4932 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 7ד(1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 708, 711 , 590 N.E.2d 1242 . An arbitration award may be challenged only through the procedure set forth in R.”
Leon v. Boardman Twp., 2003 Ohio 6466 (Ohio 2003). · cites it 11דAfter OPBA denied Leon’s request for further representation with regard to the issue of back pay, Leon instituted the present proceedings to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to R.C. 2711.10, which provides that “the court of common pleas shall make an order vacating the…”
Stow Firefighters, IAFF Local 1662 v. City of Stow, 2011 Ohio 1559 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 21דThis court applies a de novo standard of review to the trial court’s decision on a motion to vacate under R.C. 2711.10. Cloverleaf Local School Dist.”
Bd. of Educ. v. Findlay Educ. Ass'n, 551 N.E.2d 186 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 6דR.C. 2711.10 provides in pertinent part: “In any of the following cases, the court of common pleas shall make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration if: U* * * “(D) The arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them…”
N. Ohio Sewer Contractors, Inc. v. Bradley Dev. Co., 825 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “1 Standard of Review {¶ 11} Ohio public policy encourages the resolution of disputes through arbitration. Kelm v. Kelm (1993), 68 Ohio St.”
Carothers v. Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, L.L.P., 2023 Ohio 1907 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶ 16} Conversely, “‘if the arbitrator has not exceeded his or her powers, the award should not be vacated or modified, absent any of the other circumstances in R.C. 2711.10 and 2711.11 (such as corruption, fraud, misconduct, partiality, or material mistake).”
Adams Cty./Ohio Valley Local Sch. v. OAPSE/AFSCME, Local 572, 2017 Ohio 6929 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “ion, fraud, or undue means; (2) there was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators, or any of them; (3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent…”
Stow Firefighters, IAFF Local 1662 v. City of Stow, 2011 Ohio 1559 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “This court applies a de novo standard of review to the trial court’s decision on a motion to vacate under R.C. 2711.10. Cloverleaf Local School Dist.”
Bd. of Educ. v. Findlay Educ. Ass'n, 551 N.E.2d 186 (Ohio 1990). “R.C. 2711.10 provides in pertinent part: “In any of the following cases, the court of common pleas shall make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration if: U* * * “(D) The arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them…”
Dayton City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Dayton Edn. Assn., 2018 Ohio 4350 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “In either situation, the common pleas court is required to grant the order to confirm unless the court vacates, modifies, or corrects the award under R.C. 2711.10 or R.C. 2711.11. {¶ 37} R.C.”
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.