Fairchild Corp. v. Alcoa, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• confirming award because even if “the [a]rbitrator’s ruling were deemed inconsistent, by itself that deficiency would not suffice as grounds for vacating the [a]ward”
• “[A]rbitration proceedings require merely an expeditious and summary hearing, with only restricted inquiry into factual issues.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[A]n arbitrator has discretion to admit or reject evidence and determine what materials may be cumulative or irrelevant.”
• “The case law makes clear . . . that an arbitrator has discretion to admit or reject evidence and determine what materials may be cumulative or irrelevant.”
• “[A]t bottom [the petitioner’s] challenge basically reflects not an invalidating flaw in the [a]ward, but [an] instance of [the petitioner’s] quarrel with the [a]rbitrator’s factual findings, which not a sufficient justification to reverse an arbitral decision.”
• “[A]t bottom [the petitioner’s] challenge basically reflects not an invalidating flaw in the 11 For example, Deutsch asserts that the 2021 panel ignored a certain data table setting out the quantities of Deutsch’s wine purchases (JX-80

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).