A. Fred Miller v. Purvis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Both the attorney and the former client have an interest in fair, expedient and inexpensive adjudication. Appellate review of an arbitration panel’s decision in order to determine either clear error of fact or law would reduce the risk of an unjust decision by an arbitration panel. On the other hand the same concerns which underlie the limits on appealability under the arbitration act apply to those limits in the context of attorney fee arbitration. They are that review on the merits tends to cause delay, necessitates greater judicial involvement, is more apt to require the employment of counsel, and thus cause greater expense.... In addition to these generic considerations there are factors which are unique to attorney fee arbitration. These are the need for public confidence in the lawyer/elient relationship, the difficulty which clients of limited income may have in procuring an attorney to represent them against another attorney, and the vulnerability .of clients when litigating against their former lawyers. Also to be considered is the fact that Alaska has had mandatory fee arbitration since 1974. The system has apparently worked well.... In view of these factors and circumstances we are not convinced that, for purposes of the Mathews v. Eldridge approach, the benefits to be gained from appellate review on the merits necessarily outweighs the detriments which such review would entail.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Butler v. Dunlap

2. “(1) [t]he award was procured by fraud or other undue means; (2) there was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of a party; (3) the arbitrators exceeded their powers; [or] (4) the arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown for postponement or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of AS 09.43.050, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Butler v. Dunlap

3. “The decision will be in writing ... the decision will include ... the findings of the arbitrator or panel on all issues and questions submitted which are necessary to resolve the dispute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. HAEG v. Cole