Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 20 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Westerbeke Corporation v. Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Westerbeke Corporation v. Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. Anchor | green | “the arbitrator's factual findings and contractual interpretation are not subject to judicial challenge, particularly on our limited review of whether the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law.” | 10 |
| 2 | Michael E. Wallace, David Jacaruso and Joseph Scotti v. Daljit S. Buttar and Paramjit Buttar, Robert Winston, Additional | green | “a federal court cannot vacate an arbitral award merely because it is convinced that the arbitration panel made the wrong call on the law.” | 10 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.