U.S. Code » Title 9 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— GENERAL PROVISIONS

9 U.S.C. § 10

Same; vacation; grounds; rehearing

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 9 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration—(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.(b) If an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired, the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.(c) The United States district court for the district wherein an award was made that was issued pursuant to section 580 of title 5 may make an order vacating the award upon the application of a person, other than a party to the arbitration, who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the award, if the use of arbitration or the award is clearly inconsistent with the factors set forth in section 572 of title 5.(July 30, 1947, ch. 392, 61 Stat. 672; Pub. L. 101–552, § 5, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2745; Pub. L. 102–354, § 5(b)(4), Aug. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 946; Pub. L. 107–169, § 1, May 7, 2002, 116 Stat. 132.)Derivation

Act Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 213, § 10, 43 Stat. 885.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2002—Subsec. (a)(1) to (4). Pub. L. 107–169, § 1(1)–(3), substituted “where” for “Where” and realigned margins in pars. (1) to (4), and substituted a semicolon for period at end in pars. (1) and (2) and “; or” for the period at end in par. (3).

Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 107–169, § 1(5), substituted “If an award” for “Where an award”, inserted a comma after “expired”, and redesignated par. (5) as subsec. (b).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107–169, § 1(4), (5), redesignated subsec. (a)(5) as (b). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (c).

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–169, § 1(4), redesignated subsec. (b) as (c).

1992—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–354 substituted “section 580” for “section 590” and “section 572” for “section 582”.

1990—Pub. L. 101–552 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), in introductory provisions substituted “In any” for “In either”, redesignated former subsecs. (a) to (e) as pars. (1) to (5), respectively, and added subsec. (b) which read as follows: “The United States district court for the district wherein an award was made that was issued pursuant to section 580 of title 5 may make an order vacating the award upon the application of a person, other than a party to the arbitration, who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the award, if the use of arbitration or the award is clearly inconsistent with the factors set forth in section 572 of title 5.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4,042 cases (1,053 in the last 5 years), 1932–2026 · leading case: Hall Street Assocs., L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hall Street Assocs., L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008). · cites it 13× “the award should be vacated on the grounds allowable under 9 U.S.C. § 10 , or modified or corrected under the grounds allowable under 9 U.”
Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010). · cites it 8× “See 9 U. S. C. §10 (a)(4) (authorizing a district court to “make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration .”
James Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works LLC, 709 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir. 2013). · cites it 14× “He argued that Lally-Green was evidently partial in violation of 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(2) and that she had fraudulently induced the arbitration agreement.”
Samaan v. Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc., 835 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 11× “See 9 U.S.C. § 10 . General Dynamics filed a response requesting that the court deny Sa-maan’s motion and confirm the award.”
Cable Connection, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc., 190 P.3d 586 (Cal. 2008). · cites it 10× “(a); [4] 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a). [5] ) Anaward may be corrected for (1) evident miscalculation or mistake; (2) excess of the arbitrators' powers; or (3) imperfection in form.”
Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 5× “Appellants argue that the award should be vacated under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a) (2006), and the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “Convention”), 9 U.”
Hoolahan v. IBC Advanced Alloys Corp., 947 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 2020). · cites it 14× “9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(1) IBC argues that the Award should be vacated because it was "procured by .”
T. CO METALS, LLC v. Dempsey Pipe & Supply, Inc., 592 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2010). · cites it 8× “See 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(4). Finally, the district court explained in the alternative that, even if manifest disregard were still a viable basis on which to modify or vacate an arbitration award, the diminution-in-value award was a “reasoned judgment” that did not constitute a…”
United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., 563 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 8× “See 9 U.S.C. § 10 . In the meantime, on October 8, 2004, while the post-arbitration motions were pending before the Court of Federal Claims, the United States filed its own complaint and motion in the Central District of California to vacate the arbitration award.”
Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 584 F.3d 513 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “Century moved in the District Court to vacate the arbitrators’ award, arguing that it had not agreed to submit its dispute with Lloyd’s to arbitration and that, even if it did, the majority award was subject to vacatur on both procedural and substantive grounds under 9 U.S.C. §…”
Nat'l Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat'l Football League Players Ass'n, 820 F.3d 527 (2d Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “” 28 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(3). We have held that vacatur is warranted in such a 29 circumstance only if “fundamental fairness is violated.”
Ario v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds, 618 F.3d 277 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 8× “Crane did not personally recall the negotiations that led to the underwriting, Ario argues, the arbitration award must be vacated because it is "irrational." Applying the FAA's vacatur standards, we disagree and affirm the District Court's judgment confirming the award.”
Show all 4,042 citing cases →
— 9 U.S.C. § 10(1999) — 1 case
Thomas Petroleum, Inc. & Thomas Fuels, Lubricants & Chemicals, Inc. v. Gregory Morris, 355 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. App. 2011).
— 9 U.S.C. § 10(3) — 1 case
Schafer v. Multiband Corp., 57 F. Supp. 3d 792 (E.D. Mich. 2014).
— 9 U.S.C. § 10(a) — 16 cases
PG Publ'g Co v. Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh, 19 F.4th 308 (3rd Cir. 2021).
ICC Chem. Corp. v. Nordic Tankers Trading A/S, 186 F. Supp. 3d 296 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
Forged Components, Inc. v. Ricky Guzman, 409 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App. 2013).
Progressive Data Sys., Inc. v. Jefferson Randolph Corp., 568 S.E.2d 474 (Ga. 2002).
Warbington Constr., Inc. v. Franklin Landmark, L.L.C., 66 S.W.3d 853 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
— 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1) — 5 cases
Reece v. U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., 80 P.3d 1088 (Idaho 2003).
Nosbaum v. J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC (N.D. Ill. 2018).
Cuker v. Berezofsky (E.D. Pa. 2025).
Kyle Coley & Mattie Coley v. T.T. of F. Frankfort, Inc., et al. (E.D. Ky. 2026).
Harrod v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 197 F. App'x 324 (5th Cir. 2006).
— 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2) — 2 cases
Rogers v. Ausdal Fin. Partners, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 3d 378 (D. Mass. 2016).
Pac. West Sec., Inc. v. Joanna George, 670 F. App'x 954 (9th Cir. 2016).
— 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3) — 8 cases
Forged Components, Inc. v. Ricky Guzman, 409 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App. 2013).
Immersion Corp. v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 188 F. Supp. 3d 960 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
MPJ v. Aero Sky, L.L.C., 673 F. Supp. 2d 475 (W.D. Tex. 2009).
Max Marx Color & Chem. Co. Employees' Profit Sharing Plan v. Barnes, 37 F. Supp. 2d 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Tassin v. Ryan's Fam. Steakhouse, Inc., 509 F. Supp. 2d 585 (M.D. La. 2007).
— 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) — 8 cases
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2009).
Immersion Corp. v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 188 F. Supp. 3d 960 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
System4, LLC v. Ribeiro, 275 F. Supp. 3d 297 (D. Mass. 2017).
Wells Fargo Bank v. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, 2015 OK CIV APP 10 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).
CIGNA Healthcare of Tennessee, Inc. v. Baptist Mem'l HealthCare Corp. (W.D. Tenn. 2024).
— 9 U.S.C. § 10(b) — 3 cases
United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 931 F. Supp. 1074 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
In Re the Arbitration Between Ilios Shipping & Trading Corp. & Am. Anthracite & Bituminous Coal Corp., 148 F. Supp. 698 (S.D.N.Y. 1957).
Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., 500 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1974).
— 9 U.S.C. § 10(c) — 1 case
Auto. Mechanics, Local 701 Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Holiday Oldsmobile, 356 F. Supp. 1325 (N.D. Ill. 1972).
— 9 U.S.C. § 10(d) — 4 cases
Mid Atl. Capital v. Bien, 956 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2020).
In Re the Arbitration of Certain Controversies Between Cofinco, Inc. & Bakrie & Bros., N. V., 395 F. Supp. 613 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).
McMahon v. RMS Elec., Inc., 695 F. Supp. 1557 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local No. 120 v. Univ. of St. Thomas, 894 F. Supp. 346 (D. Minnesota 1994).
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.