710 ILCS 5/13
Modification or correction of awards
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(710 ILCS 5/13)
(from Ch. 10, par. 113)
Sec. 13.
Modification or correction of awards.
(a) Upon application made within 90 days after delivery of a copy of the
award to the applicant, the court shall modify or correct the award where:
(1) There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake
in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the
award;
(2) The arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and
the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision
upon the issues submitted; or
(3) The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits
of the controversy.
(b) If the application is granted, the court shall modify and correct
the award so as to effect its intent and shall confirm the award as so
modified and corrected. Otherwise, the court shall confirm the award as
made.
(c) An application to modify or correct an award may be joined in the
alternative with an application to vacate the award.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 3844.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Federal Signal Corp. v. SLC Technologies, Inc.
Federal Signal Corp. v. SLC Technologies, Inc. (2001)
“In particular, SLC sought clarification of the following: “What is the basis for the court’s denial of SLC’S motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings? Did the Court determine that the arbitration award is subject to modification or vacation pursuant to 710 ILCS 5/12 or…”
Herricane Graphics, Inc. v. Blinderman Construction Co. (2004)
“Plaintiff sought to vacate the award under section 12(a)(3) of the Uniform Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act) (710 ILCS 5/12(a)(3) (West 2002)) or, in the alternative, to modify the award pursuant to section 13 of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13 (West 2002)). On January 29,…”
Sloan Electric v. Professional Realty & Development Corp. (2004)
“Section 13(a) of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2002)) allows a court to modify or correct an award where: there was an evident miscalculation or an error in a description; the arbitrator ruled on a matter not submitted to him, and the court is able to correct the…”
Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics and Allied Workers International Union, Afl-Cio, Clc, Local 182b v. Excelsior Foundry (1995)
“The Act defines modification and correction so narrowly, 710 ILCS 5/13, as to seem to exclude requests for mere clarification.”
EQUITY INS. MANAGERS OF ILL. v. McNichols (2001)
“II McNichols next argues the arbitrator’s award of consequential damages in the form of lost profits was a gross error because she did not contemplate such damages at the time she entered into the employment contract. •3 A court will modify or correct an award where there is an…”
Galasso v. KNS Companies, Inc. (2006)
“Section 13(a) of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2002)) allows a court to modify or correct an award where: (1) there was an evident miscalculation or an error in a description; (2) the arbitrators ruled on a matter not submitted to them, and the court is able to…”
Contract Development Corp. v. Beck (1994)
“Section 13 of the Uniform Arbitration Act, adopted in Illinois (710 ILCS 5/13 (West 1992)), requires a party seeking the modification of an award to file an application within 90 days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant.”
Lemna v. Harry F. Shea & Co. (1993)
“113; 710 ILCS 5/13 (West 1992).) We must disagree.”
Perkins Restaurants Operating Co. v. Van Den Bergh Foods Co. (1995)
“” 710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 1992). Gross errors of judgment in law or a gross mistake of fact will not vitiate an arbitration award unless the mistakes or errors are apparent on the face of the award.”
Shultz v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance (2006)
“” 710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2000). “Since the agreement of the parties fixes the ‘conditions, limitations and restrictions to be observed by the arbitrator in making his award’ [citation], the agreement defines the limits of the arbitrator’s powers.”
Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc. v. Hedrich (1994)
“113(a)(1) (now 710 ILCS 5/13(a)(1) (West 1992))) and the FAA ( 9 U.”
Kenny v. KENNY INDUSTRIES, INC. (2010)
“” 710 ILCS 5/13(a), (b) (West 2008). Under section 12(a) of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/12(a) (West 2008)), the court shall vacate the award where: (1) it was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (2) there was evident partiality, corruption or misconduct; (3)…”
— 710 ILCS 5/13(a) — 11 cases
Sloan Electric v. Professional Realty & Development Corp. (2004)
“Section 13(a) of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2002)) allows a court to modify or correct an award where: there was an evident miscalculation or an error in a description; the arbitrator ruled on a matter not submitted to him, and the court is able to correct the…”
Herricane Graphics, Inc. v. Blinderman Construction Co. (2004)
“Plaintiff sought to vacate the award under section 12(a)(3) of the Uniform Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act) (710 ILCS 5/12(a)(3) (West 2002)) or, in the alternative, to modify the award pursuant to section 13 of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13 (West 2002)). On January 29,…”
Galasso v. KNS Companies, Inc. (2006)
“Section 13(a) of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2002)) allows a court to modify or correct an award where: (1) there was an evident miscalculation or an error in a description; (2) the arbitrators ruled on a matter not submitted to them, and the court is able to…”
Perkins Restaurants Operating Co. v. Van Den Bergh Foods Co. (1995)
“” 710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 1992). Gross errors of judgment in law or a gross mistake of fact will not vitiate an arbitration award unless the mistakes or errors are apparent on the face of the award.”
Shultz v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance (2006)
“” 710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2000). “Since the agreement of the parties fixes the ‘conditions, limitations and restrictions to be observed by the arbitrator in making his award’ [citation], the agreement defines the limits of the arbitrator’s powers.”
— 710 ILCS 5/13(a)(1) — 5 cases
Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc. v. Hedrich (1994)
“113(a)(1) (now 710 ILCS 5/13(a)(1) (West 1992))) and the FAA ( 9 U.”
Lemna v. Harry F. Shea & Co. (1993)
“113; 710 ILCS 5/13 (West 1992).) We must disagree.”
— 710 ILCS 5/13(a)(3) — 2 cases
Jutla v. Dovitz (2022)
— 710 ILCS 5/13(a)(l) — 1 case
EQUITY INS. MANAGERS OF ILL. v. McNichols (2001)
“II McNichols next argues the arbitrator’s award of consequential damages in the form of lost profits was a gross error because she did not contemplate such damages at the time she entered into the employment contract. •3 A court will modify or correct an award where there is an…”
— 710 ILCS 5/13(b) — 2 cases
Federal Signal Corp. v. SLC Technologies, Inc. (2001)
“In particular, SLC sought clarification of the following: “What is the basis for the court’s denial of SLC’S motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings? Did the Court determine that the arbitration award is subject to modification or vacation pursuant to 710 ILCS 5/12 or…”
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.
|