Custom Dec. Moldings v. Innov. Plastics

5 Citing cases

  1. TD Ameritrade v. McLaughlin

    953 A.2d 726 (Del. Ch. 2008)   Cited 40 times
    Describing Patrick simply as "authority to the contrary"

    The fact that arbitrators ultimately chose not to follow the cases cited by Ameritrade" even if they did so erroneously โ€” is not manifest disregard of the law. Cf. Custom Decorative Moldings, Inc. v. Innovative Plastics Tech., Inc., C.A. No. 17592, 2000 WL 1273301, at *8 (Del.Ch. Aug. 30, 2000) (refusing to vacate an arbitration award finding an individual respondent jointly and severally liable "after a full factual hearing at which [that individual respondent] was represented and had the opportunity to present evidence")See, e.g., Patrick v. Union State Bank, 681 So.2d 1364 (Ala. 1996) (holding that a bank has a duty to protect a noncustomer from the criminal acts of a customer of the bank where the bank negligently allowed an imposter to open an account in the plaintiff's name).

  2. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

    886 A.2d 46 (Del. Ch. 2005)   Cited 17 times
    Referring to Arbitration Forums, Inc.'s Automobile Subrogation Arbitration Agreement

    10 Del. C. ยง 5714(a)(3); see also Falcon Steel Co. v. HCB Contractors, Inc., 1991 WL 50139, *2, 1991 Del.Ch. LEXIS 69, *5-6 (Del.Ch. Apr. 4, 1991).Wier, 1997 WL 74651 at *4, 1997 Del.Ch. LEXIS at *14; Falcon Steel Co., 1991 WL 50139 at *2, 1991 Del.Ch. LEXIS at *5-6; Custom Decorative Moldings, Inc. v. Innovative Plastics Technology, Inc., 2000 WL 1273301, *5, 2000 Del.Ch. LEXIS 131, *15 (Del.Ch. Aug. 30, 2000). Examples of this extraordinary remedy are necessarily rare in Delaware jurisprudence.

  3. City of Wilmington v. American Federation of State

    C.A. No. 395-N (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 2005)

    Motorola, Inc. v. Amkor Tech., Inc., 849 A.2d 931, 935 (Del. 2004).Custom Decorative Moldings, Inc. v. Innovative Plastics Tech., Inc., 2000 WL 1273301, at *2 (Del.Ch. Aug. 30, 2000) (quoting E.I. duPont de Nemours Co. v. Custom Blending Int'l, Inc., 1998 WL 842289, at *3 (Del.Ch. Nov. 24, 1998)).See Graham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 565 A.2d 908, 911 (Del. 1989); see also New Castle County v. Fraternal Order of Police, 1996 WL 757237 (Del.Ch. Dec. 17, 1996) (citing Stroehmann Bakeries, Inc. v. Local 776, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 969 F.2d 1436, 1441 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 655 (1992) (detailing the benefits of arbitration and judicial deference thereto)).

  4. Blank Rome LLP, v. Vendel

    C.A. No. 19355 (Del. Ch. Aug. 5, 2003)   Cited 13 times
    Upholding arbitrator's decision to permit reimbursement for certain expenses under a fee agreement, including expenses "for photocopies, telephone calls, and computer research" and noting that "[c]ommon sense suggests that when a client hires a lawyer, the client implicitly agrees that the lawyer will have certain resources to accomplish the task at hand. The client cannot require the lawyer to give diligent representation and at the same time handcuff the lawyer from having access to the customary tools of the profession (e.g. photocopies, telephone calls and legal research) and techniques (e.g. summarizing the relevant portions of lengthy depositions)"

    When reviewing an arbitration award, the Court is prohibited from considering the merits of the dispute submitted to the Arbitrator. Custom Decorative Moldings, Inc. v. Innovative Plastics Tech., Inc., 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 131 (Del.Ch. Aug. 30, 2000); 10 Del. C. ยง 5701. Here, the defendants bicker over numerous factual findings and assumptions and whether there was evidentiary basis in the record for those findings.

  5. City of Wilmington v. Local 1102

    C.A. No. 19561-NC (Del. Ch. Mar. 21, 2003)

    Cerberus Int'l. Ltd. v. Apollo Management. L.P., 794 A.2d 1141, 1150 (Del. 2002); Williams v. Geier, 671 A.2d 1368, 1375 (Del. 1996).Custom Decorative Moldings, Inc. v. Innovative Plastics Tech., Inc., 2000 WL 1273301, at *2 (Del.Ch. Aug. 30, 2000) (quoting E.I. duPont de Nemours Co. v. Custom Blending Int'l, Inc., 1998 WL 842289, at *3 (Del.Ch. Nov. 24, 1998)).New Castle County v. Fraternal Order of Police, 1996 WL 757237, at *1 (Del.Ch. Dec. 17, 1996); see also Meades v. Wilmington Hous. Auth., 2003 WL 939863, at *4 (Del.Ch. Mar. 6, 2003) ("The role of courts in post-arbitration judicial review is limited."