Opinion ID: 792638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: 13 Judicial review of arbitration panel decisions is extremely limited; indeed, it has been described as among the narrowest known to law. Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co., 254 F.3d 925, 932 (10th Cir.2001) (quotation omitted). Under § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a court may vacate an arbitration award in certain instances of fraud or corruption, arbitrator misconduct, or `where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.' Id. (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4)). In addition, we have acknowledged a judicially-created basis for vacating an award when the arbitrators acted in manifest disregard of the law. ARW Exploration Corp. v. Aguirre, 45 F.3d 1455, 1463 (10th Cir.1995). This standard requires a finding that the panel's decision exhibits willful inattentiveness to the governing law. Id. Merely erroneous interpretations or applications of law are not reversible. Id. Put another way, we [r]equir[e] more than error or misunderstanding of the law[.][A] finding of manifest disregard means the record will show the arbitrators knew the law and explicitly disregarded it. Bowen, 254 F.3d at 932 (internal citation omitted). Finally, we review a district court's factual findings in confirming the award for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Denver & Rio Grande W. Ry. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 119 F.3d 847, 849 (10th Cir.1997).