Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 92-1341.
M.K. PETERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RAUSCHER PIERCE REFSNES, INC., et al., Defendants,
Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc., and Richard F. Juba, Defendants-Appellees.
Jan. 14, 1993.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before GOLDBERG, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
After our study of the briefs in this case and after hearing oral arguments of counsel, we are
convinced that the award of the arbitration panel should not be vacated. The circumstances under
which an arbitration award will be set aside are extremely narrow. Judicial review of arbitration
awards is extremely limited, and the standard o f review applied by the district court is a very
deferential one. Anderman/Smith Co. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 918 F.2d 1215, 1218 (5th
Cir.1990). The district court denied Peterson's motion to vacate the arbitration award. We review
de novo the district court's order. Id. at 1218 n. 2.
Peterson argues that the panel's award should be vacated because of the evident partiality of
the arbitrators, because he was denied due process, because of the panel's manifest disregard for the
law, and because of procedural irregularities that prejudiced his rights. Peterson, however, has failed
to convince us with any of these arguments that the arbitration panel's award should be set aside.
Although Peterson has pointed out several procedural irregularities, we are not convinced that the
fundamental fairness of the proceeding was undermined; in short, none are serious enough to warrant
vacating the award. In concluding, we must observe that the basis for many of the claims raised in
this appeal were provided by Peterson and his counsel. And, finally, we would note as an aside that
we have been unimpressed with the merits of the claims asserted in the arbitration proceeding. The