SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  20
ARBITRATION CASES PENDING IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co. Inc. v. Richard Leon Werline , No. 07-0135 Question Presented: The issue is whether a trial court’s order vacating an arbitrator’s award and directing a rehearing give the court of appeals interlocutory jurisdiction.
Werline worked for the Company as its chief engineer, then  as operations manager, and ultimately (at Werline’s request) as Vice President of New  Project Development. Within weeks after accepting the vice president’s title, Werline abruptly resigned, accusing the Company of breaching his employment contract. The  resulting dispute was put to an arbitrator, who awarded Werline two years’ salary as contractual damages.
The Texas Arbitration Act allows for limited judicial review of arbitration awards. Under the Act’s section 171.088, a trial court can entertain motions to vacate an award.  And subject to ruling on any such motion to vacate, the Act’s sections 171.087 and 171.088(c) afford the trial courts further jurisdiction to  confirm. Under the jurisdiction so afforded, the lower court in this case concluded that the  arbitrator’s award resulted from (1) evident partiality, (2) willful misconduct, and (3) a gross  mistake. The trial  court granted the Company’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award,  expressly denied Werline’s competing motion to confirm the award, and granted rehearing before a new arbitrator.
 
Appellate Jurisidiction: (a) A party may appeal a judgment or decree entered under this chapter or an order: . . . (3) confirming or denying confirmation of an award; (4) modifying or correcting an award; or (5) vacating an award without directing a rehearing. Disagreeing with prior Texas decisions, the Sixth Court found that it had plenary jurisdiction  under this statute   and reversed (reinstating the arbitrator’s award).
Issue Presented Prior decisions interpreting the Texas Arbitration Act reserve appellate review of arbitration rulings for situations where the lower court’s order effectively concludes the proceeding. The Sixth Court, in contrast, has reviewed and reversed an order that grants rehearing of arbitration, and it has done so merely because the reversed order included a further declaration denying Werline’s motion to confirm the arbitral award. •  Did the gratuitous denial of confirmation afford the Sixth  Court jurisdiction in this case? •  Does the Texas Arbitration Act ever afford appellate  jurisdiction over an order that grants a rehearing of arbitration?
If a trial court’s order says that rehearing is granted and confirmation denied, then the Sixth Court would review it. But if the order instead pronounces that rehearing is granted and the arbitration award vacated – a substantively identical result – there would be no review.
Bison Building Materials Ltd. v. Lloyd K. Aldridge ,  Question Presented: The principal issue is whether an appeal can be taken from a trial court’s order vacating in part an arbitration award without a rehearing
 
 
 
In re Gulf Exploration LLC, et al , No. 07-0055 Question Presented: The principal issues are whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review a trial court order compelling arbitration and, if so, whether the appeals court erred by vacating the order on grounds that claims were outside the scope of the arbitration clause.
The Set Up ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
 
Two Step Approach ,[object Object],[object Object]
Forest Oil Corp. and Daniel B. Worden v. James Argyle McAllen, et al. , No. 06-0178 Question Presented: The principal issues are (1) whether a disclaimer in a contract bars a claim that an arbitration clause was fraudulently induced; (2) whether reliance on a representation contrary to the contracts was justified; and (3) whether reliance on a representation during settlement negotiations was justified. This case involves personal-injury allegations and death of an endangered rhinoceros that allegedly resulted from radioactive pipe.
Perry Homes, et al. v. Robert E. Cull and S. Jane Cull , No. 05-0882 Question Presented: The principal issues in this arbitration case in which plaintiffs resisted arbitration then invoked their rights to it are (1) whether prejudice must be shown to establish a party waived its arbitration rights and (2) whether a defendant is prejudiced by a plaintiff’s pretrial discovery that would not have been available in arbitration.
City of Rockwall v. Vester T. Hughes ,  No. 05-0126 Question Presented: The issue is whether Local Government Code section 43.052[i]'s arbitration provision -for disputes over a municipality's failure to act on a petition to include land in a three-year annexation plan - applies when the municipality rejects the landowner's petition.
In re Poly-America L.P., et al. , No. 04-1049 Question Presented: The principal issues in this worker’s-compensation retaliation case are (1) whether an arbitration agreement that limited remedies and required the employee to share arbitration costs is unconscionable and (2) whether the court of appeals abused its discretion by not enforcing a severance provision in the agreement.

Contenu connexe

Tendances

BoyarMiller – Things Every Associate Should Know
BoyarMiller – Things Every Associate Should Know BoyarMiller – Things Every Associate Should Know
BoyarMiller – Things Every Associate Should Know BoyarMiller
 
Motion Reconsideration
Motion ReconsiderationMotion Reconsideration
Motion Reconsiderationguest9becd34
 
BoyarMiller - Review of Boilerplate Contract Provisions: Say What You Mean an...
BoyarMiller - Review of Boilerplate Contract Provisions: Say What You Mean an...BoyarMiller - Review of Boilerplate Contract Provisions: Say What You Mean an...
BoyarMiller - Review of Boilerplate Contract Provisions: Say What You Mean an...BoyarMiller
 
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent Cases
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent CasesSupreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent Cases
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent CasesPatton Boggs LLP
 
SKGF_Advisory_Living in a Post KSR World_2007
SKGF_Advisory_Living in a Post KSR World_2007SKGF_Advisory_Living in a Post KSR World_2007
SKGF_Advisory_Living in a Post KSR World_2007SterneKessler
 
The Rules Have Changed: Developments that Impact the Landscape of Texas Litig...
The Rules Have Changed: Developments that Impact the Landscape of Texas Litig...The Rules Have Changed: Developments that Impact the Landscape of Texas Litig...
The Rules Have Changed: Developments that Impact the Landscape of Texas Litig...BoyarMiller
 
BoyarMiller - The Rules Have Changed: Recent Developments that Impact the La...
BoyarMiller - The Rules Have Changed:  Recent Developments that Impact the La...BoyarMiller - The Rules Have Changed:  Recent Developments that Impact the La...
BoyarMiller - The Rules Have Changed: Recent Developments that Impact the La...BoyarMiller
 
Guerra chevron criminosa
Guerra   chevron criminosaGuerra   chevron criminosa
Guerra chevron criminosaTom Pereira
 
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008SterneKessler
 
ACC 2013 - Spoliation Claims & Maximizing Attorneys' Fees
ACC 2013 - Spoliation Claims & Maximizing Attorneys' FeesACC 2013 - Spoliation Claims & Maximizing Attorneys' Fees
ACC 2013 - Spoliation Claims & Maximizing Attorneys' FeesBoyarMiller
 
SCOTUS Amicus Brief filed in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank case.
SCOTUS Amicus Brief filed in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank case.SCOTUS Amicus Brief filed in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank case.
SCOTUS Amicus Brief filed in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank case.Patrick Delaney
 
Waiver of Privilege for Documents Inadvertently Disclosed During Discovery
Waiver of Privilege for Documents Inadvertently Disclosed During DiscoveryWaiver of Privilege for Documents Inadvertently Disclosed During Discovery
Waiver of Privilege for Documents Inadvertently Disclosed During DiscoveryAndrew N. Plasz
 
WANDA ABIOTO - Sanctions
WANDA ABIOTO - SanctionsWANDA ABIOTO - Sanctions
WANDA ABIOTO - SanctionsVogelDenise
 

Tendances (16)

BoyarMiller – Things Every Associate Should Know
BoyarMiller – Things Every Associate Should Know BoyarMiller – Things Every Associate Should Know
BoyarMiller – Things Every Associate Should Know
 
Motion Reconsideration
Motion ReconsiderationMotion Reconsideration
Motion Reconsideration
 
BoyarMiller - Review of Boilerplate Contract Provisions: Say What You Mean an...
BoyarMiller - Review of Boilerplate Contract Provisions: Say What You Mean an...BoyarMiller - Review of Boilerplate Contract Provisions: Say What You Mean an...
BoyarMiller - Review of Boilerplate Contract Provisions: Say What You Mean an...
 
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent Cases
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent CasesSupreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent Cases
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent Cases
 
SKGF_Advisory_Living in a Post KSR World_2007
SKGF_Advisory_Living in a Post KSR World_2007SKGF_Advisory_Living in a Post KSR World_2007
SKGF_Advisory_Living in a Post KSR World_2007
 
The Rules Have Changed: Developments that Impact the Landscape of Texas Litig...
The Rules Have Changed: Developments that Impact the Landscape of Texas Litig...The Rules Have Changed: Developments that Impact the Landscape of Texas Litig...
The Rules Have Changed: Developments that Impact the Landscape of Texas Litig...
 
BoyarMiller - The Rules Have Changed: Recent Developments that Impact the La...
BoyarMiller - The Rules Have Changed:  Recent Developments that Impact the La...BoyarMiller - The Rules Have Changed:  Recent Developments that Impact the La...
BoyarMiller - The Rules Have Changed: Recent Developments that Impact the La...
 
Guerra chevron criminosa
Guerra   chevron criminosaGuerra   chevron criminosa
Guerra chevron criminosa
 
Remedies in the Federal Court
Remedies in the Federal CourtRemedies in the Federal Court
Remedies in the Federal Court
 
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
 
Bilski V Kappos
Bilski V KapposBilski V Kappos
Bilski V Kappos
 
ACC 2013 - Spoliation Claims & Maximizing Attorneys' Fees
ACC 2013 - Spoliation Claims & Maximizing Attorneys' FeesACC 2013 - Spoliation Claims & Maximizing Attorneys' Fees
ACC 2013 - Spoliation Claims & Maximizing Attorneys' Fees
 
SCOTUS Amicus Brief filed in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank case.
SCOTUS Amicus Brief filed in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank case.SCOTUS Amicus Brief filed in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank case.
SCOTUS Amicus Brief filed in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank case.
 
Waiver of Privilege for Documents Inadvertently Disclosed During Discovery
Waiver of Privilege for Documents Inadvertently Disclosed During DiscoveryWaiver of Privilege for Documents Inadvertently Disclosed During Discovery
Waiver of Privilege for Documents Inadvertently Disclosed During Discovery
 
Writing sample
Writing sampleWriting sample
Writing sample
 
WANDA ABIOTO - Sanctions
WANDA ABIOTO - SanctionsWANDA ABIOTO - Sanctions
WANDA ABIOTO - Sanctions
 

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Arbitration2
Arbitration2Arbitration2
Arbitration2
 
Diigo Presentation
Diigo PresentationDiigo Presentation
Diigo Presentation
 
Bbsc Occasional Events & Programs
Bbsc Occasional Events & ProgramsBbsc Occasional Events & Programs
Bbsc Occasional Events & Programs
 
australia
australiaaustralia
australia
 
PresentacióN1
PresentacióN1PresentacióN1
PresentacióN1
 
Cuatroam
CuatroamCuatroam
Cuatroam
 
Reported Speech
Reported SpeechReported Speech
Reported Speech
 
Teachit
TeachitTeachit
Teachit
 
Foro Internacional Transparencia a Nivel Local: Santander
Foro Internacional Transparencia a Nivel Local: SantanderForo Internacional Transparencia a Nivel Local: Santander
Foro Internacional Transparencia a Nivel Local: Santander
 
Virus
VirusVirus
Virus
 
Divisão Honra Coimbra
Divisão Honra CoimbraDivisão Honra Coimbra
Divisão Honra Coimbra
 
If You Worry Dont Pray
If You Worry Dont PrayIf You Worry Dont Pray
If You Worry Dont Pray
 
Reported Speech
Reported SpeechReported Speech
Reported Speech
 
Wanted
WantedWanted
Wanted
 
Reported Speech
Reported SpeechReported Speech
Reported Speech
 
El Idiota
El IdiotaEl Idiota
El Idiota
 
www.schreibman.de
www.schreibman.dewww.schreibman.de
www.schreibman.de
 
Virus
VirusVirus
Virus
 
Regulamento Concurso LiteráRio
Regulamento Concurso LiteráRioRegulamento Concurso LiteráRio
Regulamento Concurso LiteráRio
 
Petra Unadelasmaravillasdelmun
Petra Unadelasmaravillasdelmun Petra Unadelasmaravillasdelmun
Petra Unadelasmaravillasdelmun
 

Similaire à Arbitration2

Steele Remand Order 11th Circuit
Steele Remand Order 11th CircuitSteele Remand Order 11th Circuit
Steele Remand Order 11th Circuitmzamoralaw
 
REPLY BRIEF FILED BY ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECA
REPLY BRIEF FILED BY ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECAREPLY BRIEF FILED BY ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECA
REPLY BRIEF FILED BY ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECAAngela Kaaihue
 
CAAP-19-0000806, HAWAII LAND RIGHTS -NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CAAP-19-0000806, HAWAII LAND RIGHTS -NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONCAAP-19-0000806, HAWAII LAND RIGHTS -NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CAAP-19-0000806, HAWAII LAND RIGHTS -NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONAngela Kaaihue
 
Marionv orlando
Marionv orlandoMarionv orlando
Marionv orlandomzamoralaw
 
HT_Writing Sample
HT_Writing SampleHT_Writing Sample
HT_Writing SampleHenry Tran
 
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark Dispute
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark DisputeGS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark Dispute
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark DisputeMike Keyes
 
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT ProductionFederal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT ProductionMarcellus Drilling News
 
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsReply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsRich Bergeron
 
WV Supreme Court Decision Disallowing Surface Rights Owners to Appeal Drillin...
WV Supreme Court Decision Disallowing Surface Rights Owners to Appeal Drillin...WV Supreme Court Decision Disallowing Surface Rights Owners to Appeal Drillin...
WV Supreme Court Decision Disallowing Surface Rights Owners to Appeal Drillin...Marcellus Drilling News
 
Doc1037 robert oneil paul ballard_todd hickman_seeking approval_settlement & ...
Doc1037 robert oneil paul ballard_todd hickman_seeking approval_settlement & ...Doc1037 robert oneil paul ballard_todd hickman_seeking approval_settlement & ...
Doc1037 robert oneil paul ballard_todd hickman_seeking approval_settlement & ...malp2009
 
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissBrown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissJRachelle
 
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial Grounds
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial GroundsMotion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial Grounds
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial GroundsRich Bergeron
 
Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...
Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...
Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...mh37o
 
EEOC v. Wedco, Inc. - Racial Harassment Lawsuit.
EEOC v. Wedco, Inc. - Racial Harassment Lawsuit.EEOC v. Wedco, Inc. - Racial Harassment Lawsuit.
EEOC v. Wedco, Inc. - Racial Harassment Lawsuit.Umesh Heendeniya
 
Contractual Provisions: What Do They Really Mean and How Can They Work for You?
Contractual Provisions: What Do They Really Mean and How Can They Work for You?Contractual Provisions: What Do They Really Mean and How Can They Work for You?
Contractual Provisions: What Do They Really Mean and How Can They Work for You?BoyarMiller
 
Coleman v milwaukee bd of school
Coleman v milwaukee bd of schoolColeman v milwaukee bd of school
Coleman v milwaukee bd of schoolBrian Bateman
 
Massillon mgmt., llc v. americ[1]
Massillon mgmt., llc v. americ[1]Massillon mgmt., llc v. americ[1]
Massillon mgmt., llc v. americ[1]Walt Metz
 

Similaire à Arbitration2 (20)

Steele Remand Order 11th Circuit
Steele Remand Order 11th CircuitSteele Remand Order 11th Circuit
Steele Remand Order 11th Circuit
 
REPLY BRIEF FILED BY ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECA
REPLY BRIEF FILED BY ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECAREPLY BRIEF FILED BY ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECA
REPLY BRIEF FILED BY ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECA
 
CAAP-19-0000806, HAWAII LAND RIGHTS -NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CAAP-19-0000806, HAWAII LAND RIGHTS -NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONCAAP-19-0000806, HAWAII LAND RIGHTS -NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CAAP-19-0000806, HAWAII LAND RIGHTS -NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
 
2365026_1
2365026_12365026_1
2365026_1
 
Potter v City of Tontitown
Potter v City of TontitownPotter v City of Tontitown
Potter v City of Tontitown
 
Marionv orlando
Marionv orlandoMarionv orlando
Marionv orlando
 
HT_Writing Sample
HT_Writing SampleHT_Writing Sample
HT_Writing Sample
 
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark Dispute
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark DisputeGS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark Dispute
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark Dispute
 
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT ProductionFederal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
Federal Court Decision in Alex Cooper v. EQT Production
 
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsReply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
 
WV Supreme Court Decision Disallowing Surface Rights Owners to Appeal Drillin...
WV Supreme Court Decision Disallowing Surface Rights Owners to Appeal Drillin...WV Supreme Court Decision Disallowing Surface Rights Owners to Appeal Drillin...
WV Supreme Court Decision Disallowing Surface Rights Owners to Appeal Drillin...
 
Doc1037 robert oneil paul ballard_todd hickman_seeking approval_settlement & ...
Doc1037 robert oneil paul ballard_todd hickman_seeking approval_settlement & ...Doc1037 robert oneil paul ballard_todd hickman_seeking approval_settlement & ...
Doc1037 robert oneil paul ballard_todd hickman_seeking approval_settlement & ...
 
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissBrown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss
 
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial Grounds
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial GroundsMotion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial Grounds
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial Grounds
 
Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...
Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...
Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...
 
EEOC v. Wedco, Inc. - Racial Harassment Lawsuit.
EEOC v. Wedco, Inc. - Racial Harassment Lawsuit.EEOC v. Wedco, Inc. - Racial Harassment Lawsuit.
EEOC v. Wedco, Inc. - Racial Harassment Lawsuit.
 
Contractual Provisions: What Do They Really Mean and How Can They Work for You?
Contractual Provisions: What Do They Really Mean and How Can They Work for You?Contractual Provisions: What Do They Really Mean and How Can They Work for You?
Contractual Provisions: What Do They Really Mean and How Can They Work for You?
 
FOIA darren chaker
FOIA darren chakerFOIA darren chaker
FOIA darren chaker
 
Coleman v milwaukee bd of school
Coleman v milwaukee bd of schoolColeman v milwaukee bd of school
Coleman v milwaukee bd of school
 
Massillon mgmt., llc v. americ[1]
Massillon mgmt., llc v. americ[1]Massillon mgmt., llc v. americ[1]
Massillon mgmt., llc v. americ[1]
 

Arbitration2

  • 1.
  • 2. East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co. Inc. v. Richard Leon Werline , No. 07-0135 Question Presented: The issue is whether a trial court’s order vacating an arbitrator’s award and directing a rehearing give the court of appeals interlocutory jurisdiction.
  • 3. Werline worked for the Company as its chief engineer, then as operations manager, and ultimately (at Werline’s request) as Vice President of New Project Development. Within weeks after accepting the vice president’s title, Werline abruptly resigned, accusing the Company of breaching his employment contract. The resulting dispute was put to an arbitrator, who awarded Werline two years’ salary as contractual damages.
  • 4. The Texas Arbitration Act allows for limited judicial review of arbitration awards. Under the Act’s section 171.088, a trial court can entertain motions to vacate an award. And subject to ruling on any such motion to vacate, the Act’s sections 171.087 and 171.088(c) afford the trial courts further jurisdiction to confirm. Under the jurisdiction so afforded, the lower court in this case concluded that the arbitrator’s award resulted from (1) evident partiality, (2) willful misconduct, and (3) a gross mistake. The trial court granted the Company’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award, expressly denied Werline’s competing motion to confirm the award, and granted rehearing before a new arbitrator.
  • 5.  
  • 6. Appellate Jurisidiction: (a) A party may appeal a judgment or decree entered under this chapter or an order: . . . (3) confirming or denying confirmation of an award; (4) modifying or correcting an award; or (5) vacating an award without directing a rehearing. Disagreeing with prior Texas decisions, the Sixth Court found that it had plenary jurisdiction under this statute and reversed (reinstating the arbitrator’s award).
  • 7. Issue Presented Prior decisions interpreting the Texas Arbitration Act reserve appellate review of arbitration rulings for situations where the lower court’s order effectively concludes the proceeding. The Sixth Court, in contrast, has reviewed and reversed an order that grants rehearing of arbitration, and it has done so merely because the reversed order included a further declaration denying Werline’s motion to confirm the arbitral award. • Did the gratuitous denial of confirmation afford the Sixth Court jurisdiction in this case? • Does the Texas Arbitration Act ever afford appellate jurisdiction over an order that grants a rehearing of arbitration?
  • 8. If a trial court’s order says that rehearing is granted and confirmation denied, then the Sixth Court would review it. But if the order instead pronounces that rehearing is granted and the arbitration award vacated – a substantively identical result – there would be no review.
  • 9. Bison Building Materials Ltd. v. Lloyd K. Aldridge , Question Presented: The principal issue is whether an appeal can be taken from a trial court’s order vacating in part an arbitration award without a rehearing
  • 10.  
  • 11.  
  • 12.  
  • 13. In re Gulf Exploration LLC, et al , No. 07-0055 Question Presented: The principal issues are whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review a trial court order compelling arbitration and, if so, whether the appeals court erred by vacating the order on grounds that claims were outside the scope of the arbitration clause.
  • 14.
  • 15.  
  • 16.
  • 17. Forest Oil Corp. and Daniel B. Worden v. James Argyle McAllen, et al. , No. 06-0178 Question Presented: The principal issues are (1) whether a disclaimer in a contract bars a claim that an arbitration clause was fraudulently induced; (2) whether reliance on a representation contrary to the contracts was justified; and (3) whether reliance on a representation during settlement negotiations was justified. This case involves personal-injury allegations and death of an endangered rhinoceros that allegedly resulted from radioactive pipe.
  • 18. Perry Homes, et al. v. Robert E. Cull and S. Jane Cull , No. 05-0882 Question Presented: The principal issues in this arbitration case in which plaintiffs resisted arbitration then invoked their rights to it are (1) whether prejudice must be shown to establish a party waived its arbitration rights and (2) whether a defendant is prejudiced by a plaintiff’s pretrial discovery that would not have been available in arbitration.
  • 19. City of Rockwall v. Vester T. Hughes , No. 05-0126 Question Presented: The issue is whether Local Government Code section 43.052[i]'s arbitration provision -for disputes over a municipality's failure to act on a petition to include land in a three-year annexation plan - applies when the municipality rejects the landowner's petition.
  • 20. In re Poly-America L.P., et al. , No. 04-1049 Question Presented: The principal issues in this worker’s-compensation retaliation case are (1) whether an arbitration agreement that limited remedies and required the employee to share arbitration costs is unconscionable and (2) whether the court of appeals abused its discretion by not enforcing a severance provision in the agreement.