Diapulse Corporation of America v. Carba, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court had no power to revise arbitration award amount for violating public policy because “Section 11(c) . . . does not license the district court to substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrators”
• “[t]he purpose of arbitration is to permit a relatively quick and inexpensive resolution of contractual disputes”
• arbitration provides quick and efficient resolution of disputes, thereby reducing costly litigation and delay to both the parties and the courts
• “Section 11(c) . . . is limited to matters of form not affecting the merits of the controversy, [and] does not license the district court to substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrators.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).