Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): affect a conclusion. La Vale Plaza, Inc. v. R.S. Noonan, Inc., 378 F.2d 569, 572, n.13 (3d Cir.1967). As the Seventh Circuit stated in Excelsior Foundry, functus officio conceives of arbitrators as “ad hoc judges—judges for a case; and when the case is over, they cease to be judges and go back to being law professors or businessmen or whatever else they are in private life.” 56 F.3d at 847. In the same opinion, the court opined that the functus officio doctrine was motivated primarily by judicial antagonism toward arbitrators and a derogation of the arbitral process—originating “in the bad old days when judges were hostile to arbitration and ingenious in hamstringing it.” Id. at 846; see also Courier-Citizen Co. v. Boston Electrotypers Union No. 11, 702 F.2d 273, 278 (1st Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). However, after the Supreme Court instructed 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that limitations on arbitrators post award authority rested on courts hostility toward arbitration as dispute resolution mechanism (B) holding that arbitrators award will be vacated if    mistaken as to applicable law (C) holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties (D) holding that an arbitrators award should have been vacated (E) holding that judicial is review available in the absence of an agreement for arbitration or some other form of final resolution of a dispute
Output (English): holding that arbitrators award will be vacated if    mistaken as to applicable law