3 Cal. 4th 1 - Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 884 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 940 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 83 - Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc. (2000), 15 Cal. 4th 951 - Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997)
4 federal appellate · 884 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
Applies 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon · 17 Cal. 3d 699 - Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · 6 Cal. 3d 784 - Fracasse v. Brent · 23 Cal. 3d 180 - Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, Higway & Transportation District · 38 Cal. 3d 396 - Blanton v. Womancare, Inc.
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 940 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' "a strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t is the general rule that, `The merits of the controversy between the parties [to a private arbitration agreement] are not subject to judicial review.' [Citations.] More specifically, courts will not review the validity of the arbitrator's reasoning. [Citations.] Further, a court may not review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an arbitrator's award. [Citations.] [¶] Thus, it is the general rule that, with narrow exceptions, an arbitrator's decision cannot be reviewed for errors of fact or law.”
7 later decisions 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.