Source: https://www.trans-lex.org/133600/_/franck-susan-d-the-liability-of-international-arbitrators:-a-comparative-analysis-and-proposal-for-qualified-immunity-nyl-sch-j-intl-comp-l-vol-20-at-page-17-et-seq/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:31:10+00:00

Document:
Document-Id: 133600, Please cite as: "https://www.trans-lex.org/133600"
B. Arbitral Immunity: The Extension of Judicial Immunity?
115 See, e.g., DOMKE, supra note 1, at § 23.01.
116 When deciding whether to extend quasi-judicial immunity,one important prerequisite is whether the individual truly acts with a judicial function. See City of Durham v. Reidsville Eng'g Co., 120 S.E.2d 564 (N.C. 1961)(extending immunity to engineers);Blecick v. School Dist. No. 18, 406 P.2d 750 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965) (extending immunity to architects); Wagshal v. Foster, 28 F.3d 1249, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (extending immunity to mediator and case evaluator acting in court-related program); see also Tindell v. Rogosheslce, 428 N.W.2d 386, 387 (Minn. 1988) (extending quasi-judicial immunity to guardians ad litem); cf. Craviolini v. Scholer & Fuller Assoc. Architects, 357 P.2d 611 (Ariz. 1960) (failing to extend immunity to architects who were not acting in an arbitral capacity); Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 72 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. 1955) (determining that certified accountants were not entitled to immunity where they were not acting in a quasi-judicial, decision-making capacity).
117 Sutcliffe v. Thackrah,  App. Cas. 727, 735.
118 Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478,511 (1978). Employees of administrative agencies who work as judges (ALJs) are immune from liability because they perform quasi-judicial functions. See id. at 511, 513-14. Unlike arbitrators, however, ALJs are subject to de novo review for questions of law, and questions of fact are reviewed under the substantial evidence test. See Universal Camera v.NLRB, 340 U.S.474,491 (1951) and Brickner v. FDIC, 747 F.2d 1198, n.4 (8th Cir. 1984). Ultimately, ALJs are subject to greater scrutiny and have a more involved appellate review.
119 See Hausmaninger, supra note 8, at 16 and Corey v. New York Stock Exch., 691 F.2d 1205, 1209 (6th Cir. 1982). As the Corey court clearly articulated, arbitrators are judges chosen by the parties to decide matters submitted to them; and by this private agreement, the parties invoke the arbitrators' independent judgment and discretion as adecision-maker. See Corey at 1209.
120 Park, supra note 2, at 206-7.

References: § 23
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.