Legal precedent mostly comes from trial court decisions rather ...

[evelyn o bentley]

Legal precedent mostly comes from trial court decisions rather than appellate court decisions.
 
  Indicate whether the statement is true or false

Question 2

Identify at least four ways in which an arbitrator's power differs from that of a civil trial judge.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[dajones82]

Answer to Question 1

FALSE

Answer to Question 2

 An arbitrator's decision is not as appealable and when appealed, is subject to a less
stringent standard than that applied to civil trial verdicts.
 An arbitrator can retain jurisdiction over a dispute after the award, at the request of the
parties, whereas a civil trial judge loses jurisdiction once judgment is entered.
 An arbitrator, at least in some states, is restricted in the extent, if any, to which he or she
can award punitive damages.
 Despite restrictions on the granting of punitive damages, an arbitrator has a much wider
range of remedies available than a civil trial judge or jury in that he or she can fashion an
equitable remedy to suit the situation.
 An arbitrator can accept or decline to hear a dispute, whereas a judge must hear cases
assigned to his or her court and can be excused only for cause.
 An arbitrator's power comes not from the state but from the agreement of the parties.
 An arbitrator's power is supported by laws favoring settlement rather than resort to the
court.
 An arbitrator's power is based in his or her expertise in the subject matter of the dispute
which enables the arbitrator to shape how the case is presented. A civil judge can shape a
case only through the rules of procedure.
 An arbitrator can render an award tailored to the case whereas a civil judge must always
consider precedence or face being overturned on appeal.

[evelyn o bentley]

TY

[dajones82]

You're welcome