Caution should be exercised not to over-read the significance of Kyocera. Judge Fernandez, who wrote the opinion of the court, merely brushed aside any concerns pertaining to contractual "creation" of jurisdiction for the federal courts. See also Alan Scott Rau, Contracting Out of the Arbitration Act, 8 American Rev. of Intern'l Arb. 225 (1997); Stephen J. Ware, "Opt-In" for Judicial Review of Errors of Law under the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, 8 American Rev. of Intern'l Arb. 263 (1997) (both articles refuting the argument that an "opt-in" review clause is precluded on the grounds of creating jurisdiction). Judge Kozinski, while concurring with Judge Fernandez, expressed concern that Congress has not authorized review of arbitral awards for errors of law or fact, but felt it necessary to enforce this agreement. Judge Mayer, in a dissent, cautioned that the Circuit Court had no authority to review the award in just any manner in which the parties contracted. The three opinions in Kyocera crystallize the true nature of the debate as to the "jurisdictional" dimension of the issue of expanded judicial review.

A final significant opinion in the federal Circuit Court of Appeals is UHC Management Co. v. Computer Sciences Corp., 148 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 1998). In UHC, the Eighth Circuit determined whether the contract language clearly established the parties' intent to contract for expanded judicial review. The portion of the analysis relevant here is that which concerns the propriety of contractual agreements providing for expanded judicial review beyond that contemplated by Sections 10 and 11 of the FAA. The