Batten v. Howell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he case law presupposes something beyond a mere error in construing or applying the law. Indeed, even a “clearly erroneous interpretation of the contract” cannot be disturbed. Appellant asserts that the courts have not hesitated in appropriate cases to vacate an arbitration award where there is a manifest disregard or perverse misconstruction of the law. While this is certainly true, those cases have been exceedingly rare, requiring circumstances far more egregious than mere errors in interpreting or applying the law. Indeed, the cases relied upon by appellant all contain the explicit caveat that “the nonstatutory ground of ‘manifest disregard’ of the law as a basis for vacating arbitration awards ... presuppose[s] ‘something beyond and different from a mere error of law or failure on the part of the arbitrators to understand or apply the law.’ ” Even assuming arguendo that the arbitrators did erroneously apply the law in the various particulars alleged by appellant, these legal errors would be insufficient to constitute a manifest disregard of the law under pertinent cases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. Bennett

2. “The question of whether arbitrators have exceeded their powers relates to the arbitrability of the issue they have attempted to resolve. Arbitrators exceed their powers only if the issue resolved by them is not within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate. Factual and legal errors by arbitrators do not constitute an abuse of their powers, and the court is not required to review the merits of the decision so long as the arbitrators do not exceed their powers. A party may not attempt to relitigate the merits of the arbitrators’ resolution of the arbitrable issues under the guise of questioning the arbitrators’ power. Arbitrators need not specify their reasoning or the basis of the award so long as the factual inferences and legal conclusions supporting the award are “barely colorable.” If the grounds for the award can be inferred from the facts, the award should be confirmed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. Bennett

3. “manifest disregard or perverse misconstruction of the law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lauro v. Visnapuu