Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 6-6-14 (2026)
Award - Conclusive Between Parties and Final; Exceptions.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
An award made substantially in compliance with the provisions of this division is conclusive between the parties thereto and their privies as to the matter submitted and cannot be inquired into or impeached for want of form or for irregularity if the award determines the matter or controversy submitted, and such award is final, unless the arbitrators are guilty of fraud, partiality, or corruption in making it.
(Code 1852, §2721; Code 1867, §3160; Code 1876, §3547; Code 1886, §3232; Code 1896, §521; Code 1907, §2921; Code 1923, §6169; Code 1940, T. 7, §842.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Honea v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 240 So. 3d 550 (Ala. 2017).
Honea v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 240 So. 3d 550 (Ala. 2017). “Additionally, Honea, citing Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-14, challenged the impartiality of the chairman of the arbitration panel.”
Credigy Receivable, Inc. v. Day, 3 So. 3d 206 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Code 1975, § 6-6-14, which provides, in pertinent part: "An award made substantially in compliance with the provisions of this division is conclusive between the parties thereto and their privies as to the matter submitted and cannot be inquired into or impeached for want of…”
Tuscaloosa Chevrolet, Inc. v. Guyton, 41 So. 3d 95 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “See §§ 6-6-14 and 6-6-15, Ala. Code 1975. The Act is not a model of clarity.”
Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Honea, 55 So. 3d 1161 (Ala. 2010). “Thus, RJFS argues, courts reviewing arbitration awards under Alabama common law or statute are limited to the three grounds enumerated in § 6-6-14, which grounds it argues are even more narrow than those in § 10 of the FAA, and, it further argues, courts may not therefore engage…”
Volvo Trucks North Am., Inc. v. Dolphin Line, Inc., 50 So. 3d 1050 (Ala. 2010). “” On appeal, Volvo Trucks argues that, in addition to the grounds of fraud, partiality, and corruption identified in § 6-6-14, arbitration awards under the AAA may be set aside based on a finding that the arbitrator’s decision is in manifest disregard of the law.”
Lanier v. Old Repub. Ins., 936 F. Supp. 839 (M.D. Ala. 1996). “” Alabama Code of 1975 § 6-6-14 (Miehie 1993). The Old Republic companies contend that the AAA does not apply because the Alabama Supreme Court has already determined in this case that the FAA preempts Alabama law.”
J.L. Loper Constr. Co. v. Findout P'ship, LLP, 55 So. 3d 1152 (Ala. 2010). “” The stated grounds of “fraud, partiality, or corruption” necessary for vacating an arbi *1161 trator’s award under § 6-6-14 are exclusive; they may not be expanded by this Court.”
The Sanderson Grp., Inc. v. Smith, 809 So. 2d 823 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). “Thereafter, unless within 10 days the court shall set aside the award for one or more of the causes specified in Section 6-6-14, the judgment shall become final and an appeal shall lie as in other cases.”
Mun. Workers Comp. Fund, Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 190 So. 3d 895 (Ala. 2015). “§ 10(a)(1) through (4) and § 6-6-14, Ala.Code .1975, a provision in the Alabama Arbitration Act.”
Hurst v. Eagles Landing IV, Ltd., 20 So. 3d 143 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “,] a motion to set aside or vacate the judgment based upon one or more of the grounds specified in Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-14, or other applicable law.”
Guardian Builders, LLC v. Uselton, 130 So. 3d 179 (Ala. 2013). “,] a motion to set aside or vacate the judgment based upon one or more of the grounds specified in Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-14, or other applicable law.”
Terminix Int'l Co. v. Scott, 142 So. 3d 512 (Ala. 2013). “Thereafter, as a condition precedent to further review by any appellate court, any party opposed to the award may file, in accordance with Rule 59, a motion to set aside or vacate the judgment based upon one or more of the grounds specified in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-6-14, or other…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.