 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Broadnax3/23/1992
ted by that statute to permit review of evidentiary as well as legal rulings of the arbitrator, in sharp contrast to the narrow review available in arbitration proceedings subject to the provisions of 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-15. Id. at 641.
Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co., 725 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1984), also required consideration of the judicial review provisions of 9 U.S.C. § 1461(e)(2)(A) of the 1980 Act. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the compulsory arbitration procedures of the 1980 Act violated its right of access to the courts by citing Republic Industries, Inc. for the Conclusion that the relatively broad judicial review provisions of the 1980 Act assured the plaintiff of meaningful access to the courts. Both cases turned on the availability of judicial review provisions that permitted far greater judicial evaluation of arbitration awards than is permitted by our Uniform Act.
At the very least, the right of access provisions of the Colorado Constitution require the availability of meaningful judicial review of non-judicial determinations of private disputes over property interests. In my view, section 10-4-708(1.5) does not provide such meaningful review of State Farm's property interests.
III
For the foregoing reasons, I find the compulsory arbitration provisions of section 10-4-708(1.5), 4A C.R.S. (1990 Supp.), violative of sections 3 and 6, article II, of the Colorado Constitution. I therefore respectfully Dissent from the contrary Conclusion reached by the majority.
Justice Lohr joins in this Dissent.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|