stating that an error of judgment in law is not a ground for vacating an arbitrator’s award when the interpretation of the law is entrusted to the arbitrator and that a court may review the legal reasoning behind an arbitrator’s decision only when it appears on the face of the award that the arbitrator was so mistaken about the law that the award would have been different had the arbitrator been apprised of the mistake
How later courts described this case
- stating that an error of judgment in law is not a ground for vacating an arbitrator’s award when the interpretation of the law is entrusted to the arbitrator and that a court may review the legal reasoning behind an arbitrator’s decision only when it appears on the face of the award that the arbitrator was so mistaken about the law that the award would have been different had the arbitrator been apprised of the mistake
- finding claim not presented to arbitrator was waived on appeal
- “Only where it appears on the face of the award . . . that the arbitrator was so mistaken as to the law that, if apprised of the mistake, the award would be different may a court review the legal reasoning used to reach the decision.”
- “Because the arbitrator’s decision was bargained for, the courts would have no business overruling the arbitrator’s interpretation even if they disagreed.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MR. JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, specially concurring:
I am not at all sure that I agree with everything said in the opinion of the court, particularly with reference to the double recovery by the teacher. However, because the board failed to raise that issue before the Commission or before the arbitrator, I agree that if is precluded from doing so here. Consequently, I concur in the judgment.