White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. v. Glawson Investments Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to address arguments that the arbitration panel exceeded its power by awarding fees prohibited by federal and state law: the courts “cannot . . . review the panel’s award for underlying legal error.”
• declining to review a challenge to an arbitration award because “[e]ven though [appellant] presents its argument in terms of the FAA, [appellant] asks us to do what we may not—look to the legal merits of the underlying award”
• “Because these Sections [9 U.S.C. §§ 10-11] are the exclusive means for upsetting an arbitration award, a panel’s incorrect legal conclusion is not grounds for vacating or modifying the award.”
• “Because arbitrators derive their power from the parties’ agreement, we look to the terms of the governing arbitration clause to determine the powers of the arbitration panel.” (quotation omitted)
• “[A] panel’s incorrect legal conclusion is not grounds for vacating or modifying the award.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).