159 Md. App. 64 - Mandl v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) An award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; (2) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, corruption in any arbitrator, 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 for the postponement, refused to hear evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise so conducted the hearing ... as to prejudice substantially the rights of any party; (5) There was no arbitration agreement ... the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings ... and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sharp v. Downey · 198 Md. App. 154 - Lang v. Levi

2. “Arbitration is the process by which parties voluntarily agree to substitute a private tribunal for an otherwise available public tribunal to decide specified disputes. Cheek v. United Healthcare of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc., 378 Md. 139, 146 [ 835 A.2d 656 ] (2003) (citing Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp., 298 Md. 96, 103 [ 468 A.2d 91 ] (1983)). Arbitration is encouraged in Maryland because it provides an informal, expeditious, and inexpensive alternative to conventional litigation. RTKL Assocs., Inc. v. Baltimore Co., 147 Md.App. 647, 656 [ 810 A.2d 512 ] (2002). The obligation to arbitrate is a creature of contract. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83 [ 123 S.Ct. 588 , 154 L.Ed.2d 491 ] (2002); Cheek, supra, 378 Md. at 147 [ 835 A.2d 656 ]; C.W. Jackson & Assocs., Inc. v. Brooks, 289 Md. 658, 666 [ 426 A.2d 378 ] (1981). A party cannot be compelled to submit a dispute to arbitration unless he has agreed to do so. Wells v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B., 363 Md. 232, 249 [ 768 A.2d 620 ] (2001); Curtis G. Testerman Co. v. Buck, 340 Md. 569, 579 [ 667 A.2d 649 ] (1995).... Also, because private arbitration is a matter of contract, an arbitrator derives his power from the arbitration agreement itself. MCR of Am., Inc. v. Greene, 148 Md.App. 91, 111-12 [ 811 A.2d 331 ] (2002). The parties delineate the extent of the arbitrator’s authority by the scope of their agreement to arbitrate and submission to arbitration. Id. at 112 [ 811 A.2d 331 ]; Barclay Townhouse Ass”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sharp v. Downey

3. “[Fjactual findings by an arbitrator are virtually immune from challenge and decisions on issues of law are reviewed using a deferential standard on the far side of the spectrum away from a usual expansive de novo standard. An arbitrator’s mere error of law or failure to understand or apply the law is not a basis for a court to disturb an arbitral award. Only a completely irrational decision by an arbitrator on a question of law, so extraordinary that it is tantamount to the arbitrator’s exceeding his powers, will warrant the court’s intervention.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 198 Md. App. 154 - Lang v. Levi