9 U.S.C. § 11
Same; modification or correction; grounds; order
The order may modify and correct the award, so as to effect the intent thereof and promote justice between the parties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 499
cases (132 in the last 5 years), 1938–2026 · leading case: Hall Street Assocs., L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008).
Hall Street Assocs., L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008). “§ 10 , or modified or corrected under the grounds allowable under 9 U.S.C. § 11 ." Id., at 273 . After the District Court again held for Hall Street and the Ninth Circuit again reversed, [1] we granted certiorari to decide whether the grounds for vacatur and modification…”
Mid Atl. Capital v. Bien, 956 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2020). “to Confirm Award) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 11 (a)). And the alleged double recovery here appeared only when one delved into the arbitration record.”
CPR Mgmt. SA v. Devon Park Bioventures LP, 19 F.4th 236 (3rd Cir. 2021). “10 9 U.S.C. § 11 (a)-(c). If 10 9 U.S.C. § 11 provides: In either of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order modifying or correcting the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration-- (a)…”
Cable Connection, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc., 190 P.3d 586 (Cal. 2008). “6; [6] 9 U.S.C. § 11 . [7] ) *1345 As noted at the outset, and discussed further below, in Moncharsh we declared that "`in the absence of some limiting clause in the arbitration agreement, the merits of the award, either on questions of fact or of law, may not be reviewed except…”
Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., LLC, 604 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2010). “” 9 U.S.C. § 11 (b), (c). There is a presumption under the FAA that arbitration awards will be confirmed, and “federal courts should defer to an arbitrator’s decision whenever possible.”
Smarter Tools Inc. v. Chongqing Senci Imp. & Exp. Trade Co., Ltd., 57 F.4th 372 (2d Cir. 2023). “” 9 U.S.C. § 11 (c); see also Com. Risk Reinsurance Co.”
G.C. & K.B. Investments, Inc., a Louisiana Corp. v. Stuart Wilson Irene Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2003). “Nor do the Wilsons claim any mistake within the four corners of the award itself, such as a miscalculation of a sum or a misdescription of a person or thing, 9 U.S.C. § 11 (a), or that the arbitrator acted on a matter not submitted to him, 9 U.”
Guerra v. L&F Distributors, LLC, 521 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App. 2017). “” 9 U.S.C. § 11 . The party seeking to vacate or modify an arbitration award bears the burden of proving a ground therefor.”
Hamilton Park Health Care Ctr. Ltd. v. 1199 Seiu United Healthcare Workers East, 817 F.3d 857 (3rd Cir. 2016). “But they are -silent on whether Tuchman, as the group’s representative, authorized Scheinman to issue such an award.”
AIG Baker Sterling Heights, LLC v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 508 F.3d 995 (11th Cir. 2007). “2006)), but a district court may modify or correct an arbitration award “[w]here there was an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the award,” 9 U.S.C. § 11 (a). The district…”
Ortiz-Espinosa v. BBVA Sec. of Puerto Rico, Inc., 852 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2017). “See 9 U.S.C. § 11 (a). However, § 11 plainly does not provide for modification where claimants’ sole position is that the arbitrators erred in denying their claims.”
Lummus Global Amazonas, S.A. v. Aguaytia Energy Del Peru, S.R. Ltda., 256 F. Supp. 2d 594 (S.D. Tex. 2002). “9 U.S.C. § 11 . Aguaytia argues that this court has the authority to modify the Final Award to include the stipulation under 9 U.”
— 9 U.S.C. § 11(a) — 2 cases
Blackboard Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
Apex Plumbing Supply v. US Supply Co. (4th Cir. 1998).
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.