Dalton Johnson v. Directory Assistants Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his authority when the ruling was “derived” from the contract at issue
• “Assuming [the party] had used the ADRC to conduct several arbitrations, we do not think this fact alone would lead a reasonable person to suspect partiality, especially because the ADRC uses a variety of arbitrators.”
• “mere disagreement with an arbitrator’s legal or factual determinations does not justify vacatur under § 12 10 (a) (4)”
• arbitrator’s failure to postpone hearing did not constitute misconduct where party made no request for an extension of the hearing date
• “To vacate an award under § 10(a)(4), it is not enough to show that the arbitrator committed an error— or even a serious error.”
• “mere disagreement with an arbitrator’s legal or factual determinations does not justify vacatur under [9 USC] § 10 (a) (4)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).