508
Per Curiam
tor's refusal to credit Smith's letter was "inexplicable" and "border[ed] on the irrational," because a panel of arbitrators, chaired by the arbitrator involved here, had previously concluded that the owners' prior testimony was false. Id., at 590. The court rejected the arbitrator's reliance on the absence of other corroborating evidence, attributing that fact to Smith and Garvey's direct negotiations. The court also found that the record provided "strong support" for the truthfulness of Smith's 1996 letter. Id., at 591-592. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the award.
The District Court then remanded the case to the arbitration panel for further hearings, and Garvey appealed. The Court of Appeals, again by a divided vote, explained that Garvey I established that "the conclusion that Smith made Garvey an offer and subsequently withdrew it because of the collusion scheme was the only conclusion that the arbitrator could draw from the record in the proceedings." No. 00-56080, 2000 WL 1801383, *1 (CA9, Dec. 7, 2000) (un-published), judgt. order reported at 243 F. 3d 547 (Garvey II). Noting that its prior instructions might have been unclear, the court clarified that Garvey I "left only one possible result—the result our holding contemplated—an award in Garvey's favor." 2000 WL 1801383, at *1. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and directed that it remand the case to the arbitration panel with instructions to enter an award for Garvey in the amount he claimed.1
1 Garvey contends that, because the Association's petition was filed more than 90 days after Garvey I, we cannot consider a challenge raising issues resolved in that decision. But there is no question that the Association's petition was filed in sufficient time for us to review Garvey II, and we have authority to consider questions determined in earlier stages of the litigation where certiorari is sought from the most recent of the judgments of the Court of Appeals. Mercer v. Theriot, 377 U. S. 152 (1964) (per curiam); Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers & Co., 240 U. S. 251, 258 (1916).
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007