127 Wash. 2d 256 - Boyd v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Davidson v. Hensen (1998), 81 Wash. App. 696 - Phillips Building Co., Inc. v. An (1996)
83 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 3 Cal. 4th 1 - Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase · 119 Wash. 2d 151 - Barnett v. Hicks · 71 Wash. 2d 126 - Thorgaard Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. County of King · 114 Wash. 2d 1 - In Re the Marriage of Sacco · 63 Wash. 2d 245 - Northern State Construction Co. v. Banchero
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[arbitration is attractive because it is a more expeditious and final alternative to litigation. The very purpose of arbitration is to avoid the courts insofar as the resolution of the dispute is concerned. The object is to avoid what some feel to be the formalities, the delay, the expense and vexation of ordinary litigation. Immediate settlement of controversies by arbitration removes the necessity of waiting out a crowded court docket.... Arbitration’s desirable qualities would be heavily diluted, if not expunged, if a trial court reviewing an arbitration award were permitted to conduct a trial de novo.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. (2) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators or any of them. (3) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct, in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence, pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior, by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. (4) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. (5) If there was no valid submission or arbitration agreement and the proceeding was instituted without either serving a notice of intention to arbitrate, as provided in RCW 7.04.060, or without serving a motion to compel arbitration, as provided in RCW 7.04.040(1).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Construing these statutes, this court has held that there is in this state no such thing as a commonlaw arbitration; that the proceeding is wholly statutory; and that the rights of the parties to the proceeding are governed and controlled by the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.