context: Permitting parties to contractually eliminate all judicial review of arbitration awards would not only run counter to the text of the FAA, but would also frustrate Congress's attempt to ensure a minimum level of due process for parties to an arbitration. Through SS 10 of the FAA, Congress attempted to preserve due process while still promoting the ultimate goal of speedy dispute resolution.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 552 U.S. 588, 588
citation_a.parenthetical: "[T]he three provisions, SSSS 9-11, ... sub-stantiat[e] a national policy favoring arbitration with just the limited review needed to maintain arbitration's essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway."
citation_a.sentence: See Kyocera Corp., 341 F.3d at 998 (“The[ ] grounds [in § 10] afford an extremely limited review authority, a limitation that is designed to preserve due process but not to permit unnecessary public intrusion into private arbitration procedures.”); see also Hall St. Assocs., 552 U.S. at 588, 128 S.Ct. 1396 (“[T]he three provisions, §§ 9-11, ... sub-stantiat[e] a national policy favoring arbitration with just the limited review needed to maintain arbitration’s essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway.”); Hoefb, 343 F.3d at 64 (“In enacting § 10(a), Congress impressed limited, but critical, safeguards onto this process, ones that respected the importance and flexibility of private dispute resolution mechanisms, but at the same time barred federal courts from confirming awards tainted by partiality, a lack of elementary procedural fairness, corruption, or similar misconduct.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 341 F.3d 998, 998
citation_b.parenthetical: "The[ ] grounds [in SS 10] afford an extremely limited review authority, a limitation that is designed to preserve due process but not to permit unnecessary public intrusion into private arbitration procedures."
citation_b.sentence: See Kyocera Corp., 341 F.3d at 998 (“The[ ] grounds [in § 10] afford an extremely limited review authority, a limitation that is designed to preserve due process but not to permit unnecessary public intrusion into private arbitration procedures.”); see also Hall St. Assocs., 552 U.S. at 588, 128 S.Ct. 1396 (“[T]he three provisions, §§ 9-11, ... sub-stantiat[e] a national policy favoring arbitration with just the limited review needed to maintain arbitration’s essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway.”); Hoefb, 343 F.3d at 64 (“In enacting § 10(a), Congress impressed limited, but critical, safeguards onto this process, ones that respected the importance and flexibility of private dispute resolution mechanisms, but at the same time barred federal courts from confirming awards tainted by partiality, a lack of elementary procedural fairness, corruption, or similar misconduct.”).