![]() 824 programs for use in the security services industry. 826 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports SIGNAL 88 v. BACKGROUND Contract Signal 88 is a franchisor that operates a security services franchise system in Nebraska. The Court of Appeals’ decision is reversed, and the matter is remanded with directions. For reasons we explain, we find merit to the petition for further review. On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals found the award to be ambiguous, vacated the judgment, and remanded the matter to the district court with directions to remand the matter to the arbitrator for clarification. Eventually, the court entered judgment on the award. § 25-2612 (Reissue 2016), Lyconic moved the district court to confirm the arbitrator’s award. After the arbitrator rendered a decision, pursuant to Neb. The district court ordered the dispute to be submitted to arbitration. ![]() INTRODUCTION Signal 88, LLC, filed a contract action against Lyconic, L.L.C., in the district court for Douglas County. Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ., and Thompson, District Judge. Degan, of Kutak Rock, L.L.P., for appellee. Eversden and Brian McKernan, of McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions. 824 Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, Bishop, Arterburn, and Welch, Judges, on appeal thereto from the District Court for Douglas County, Marlon A. 825 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports SIGNAL 88 v. An award does not become so vague and indefinite as to be unenforceable simply because a party can argue that a portion of it may be unclear or ambiguous. When an arbitration award is reviewed by a court, every reasonable presumption and intendment will be made in favor of the award and of the arbitrator’s acts and proceedings. Arbitration and Award: Presumptions: Intent: Appeal and Error. Where an ambiguity can be resolved by the record, the district court need not remand for clarification but where the ambiguity is not resolved by the record, the court must remand for clarification. When possible, courts should avoid remanding on the basis of ambiguity because of the interest in prompt and final arbitration. When a court modifies or corrects an arbitration award, it shall do so to effectuate the intent of the arbitrator. Judicial review of an arbitration award is severely limited. Upon reversing a decision of the Nebraska Court of Appeals, the Nebraska Supreme Court may consider, as it deems appropriate, some or all of the assignments of error that the Court of Appeals did not reach. However, the trial court’s factual findings will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous. In reviewing a decision to vacate, modify, or confirm an arbitration award, an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the trial court’s ruling as to questions of law. Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library 08:05 AM CST - 824 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports SIGNAL 88 v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |