Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

S.D. Codified Laws § 21-25A-24

Grounds for vacation of award

Known as the Uniform Arbitration Act

The act spans §§ 21–21 (38 sections).

Applied in 10 court decisions — leading case Azcon Construction Co. v. Golden Hills Resort, Inc. (1993)

Most recently applied in Konrad v. Stoebner (November 2016)

Source: SL 1971, ch 157, § 12; SL 1976, ch 155, § 6.

How often courts cite this section

1983199020002010201620
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where:

(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 §§ 21-25A-11 to 21-25A-17, inclusive, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party;

(5) There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under §§ 21-25A-5 to 21-25A-8, inclusive, and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection; or

(6) Conduct of a hearing officer which would prejudice substantially the rights of a party; provided that, 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.

Official source: South Dakota Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain South Dakota statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.