Marsch v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably 21 Cal. 4th 1066 - Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans (1999), Cable Connection, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc. (2008)
54 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 · 35 Cal. 3d 312 - Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Street · 58 Cal. App. 3d 1 - Pacific Investment Co. v. Townsend · Lesser & Son v. Seymour · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“There is no power vested in the courts more jealously guarded or safeguarded than this very power to appoint a receiver to take, for the court, the possession and control of the property of others, and this is because ... the exercise of the power may mean the divesting the owner of his lawful right to remain in possession of his property.... ... Given the continuing nature of a receiver's duties and the court's supervision, any addition to the type of tribunals empowered to appoint and supervise receivers would represent a fairly profound change in our receivership law. In sum, the precedents we have examined strongly suggest we are not at liberty to create or recognize a nonstatutory receiver, even where the parties have agreed to the appointment of one. [ Id. at 408-09 (citations omitted)]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Unless one of the enumerated grounds exists, a court may not vacate an award even if it contains a legal or factual error on its face which results in substantial injustice.”
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.