Opinion ID: 296745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Material Evidence at the Arbitration

Text: 32 Appellant complains that at the hearing the arbitrator prevented it from showing that the report allegedly plagiarized by Mrs. McLendon was itself copied from historical sources in the public domain. The arbitrator, and we think rightly so, ruled that [i]t would not make any difference if [the author of the report] had lifted the whole report from the Britannica. 33 But even if we felt that he had committed an error of law in excluding this line of proof, we would not vacate this award and order another arbitration. The better view is that an award will not be vacated even though the arbitrator may have made, in the eyes of judges, errors of fact and law unless it compels the violation of law or conduct contrary to accepted public policy. 8 No such violation is compelled by this award. 34 The orders of the District Court are hereby 35 Affirmed.