Cluster 686547
green
· 124 citation events
across 19 courts.
Showing the 35 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Co., 44 F.3d at 830 (“When arbitrators rule on a matter not submitted to them, or act outside the scope of the parties’ contractual agreement, the award may be overturned because the arbitrators exceeded the scope of their authority.”).
“When arbitrators rule on a matter not submitted to them, or act outside the scope of the parties’ contractual agreement, the award may be overturned because the arbitrators exceeded the scope of their authority.”
green
Kretsch v. Newman (2022)
Co., 44 F.3d 826 , 832 (9th Cir. 27 1995) (“When arbitrators rule on a matter not submitted to them, or act outside the scope 28 of the parties’ contractual agreement, the award may be overturned because the arbitrators 1 exceeded the scope of their authority.”).
“When arbitrators rule on a matter not submitted to them, or act outside the scope 28 of the parties’ contractual agreement, the award may be overturned because the arbitrators 1 exceeded the scope of their authority.”
green
Unite Here International Union v. Wilton Rancheria (2026)
Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir. 1995).
green
Simon Haines v. Amazon.com Services LLC (2025)
Co., 44 F.3d at 832); see also Wallace 17 v. Buttar, 378 F.3d 182, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (“A federal court cannot vacate an arbitral award 18 merely because it is convinced that the arbitration panel made the wrong call on the law.
green
Appel v. Concierge Auctions, LLC (2024)
Co., 44 F.3d at 832.
Ins. 15 Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir. 1995).
green
Riley v. Quantumscape Corp. (2023)
Ins. 9 Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir.1995)).
Co., 12 44 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 1995).
green
Cristo v. The Charles Schwab Corporation (2021)
Co., 44 F.3d at 832). “[M]anifest disregard . . . requires 13 ‘something beyond and different from a mere error in the law or failure on the part of the 14 arbitrators to understand and apply the law.’” Collins, 505 F.3d at 879 (quoting San 15 Martine Compania De Navegacion, S.A., 293 F.2d at 801).
Ins. 6 Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir. 1995). 7 IV.
green
Ju v. Lacombe (2019)
Ins. 12 Co., 44 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 1995).
Co., 44 F.3d at 832). 52 Matthews v. Nat’l Football League Mgmt.
green
Financial Network Investment v. Kayvan Karoon (2013)
Co., 44 F.3d at 832).
green
Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp. (2012)
Co., 44 F.3d at 832.
green
Central Montana Rail v. Bnsf Railway Company (2011)
Id. at 832.
green
See More Light Investments v. Morgan Stanley Dw Inc. (2011)
Co., 44 F.3d at 832.
green
Kaliroy Produce Co. v. Pacific Tomato Growers, Inc. (2010)
Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir.1995.) To rise to the level of manifest disregard, “the governing law alleged to have been ignored by the arbitrators must be well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable.” Collins v. D.R.
green
Lagstein v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS, LLOYD'S, LONDON (2010)
Ins., 44 F.3d at 830; see Stolt-Nielsen, 130 S.Ct. at 1772-75 .
In Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Unigard Security Insurance Co., 44 F.3d 826, 829 (9th Cir.1995), the issue before the arbitration panel was rescission or, alternatively, enforcement of a reimbursement contract.
green
Schoenduve Corporation, a California Corporation v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (2006)
Co., 44 F.3d at 830.
green
Schoeduve Corp. v. Lucent Technologies (2006)
Co., 44 F.3d at 830.
green
FREIGHTLINER, LLC v. Teamsters Local 305 (2004)
Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir.1995).
Co., 44 F.3d at 832; accord Prestige Ford v. Ford Dealer Computer Servs., Inc., 324 F.3d 391, 395 (5th Cir.2003).
green
ABC International Traders, Inc. v. Fun 4 All Corp. (2003)
Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir.1995).
Co., 44 F.3d 826, 831 (9th Cir.1995).
green
Bem I, L.L.C. v. Anthropologie, Inc. (2002)
Co., 44 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir.1995).
green
BEM I, L.L.C. v. Anthropologie Inc (2002)
Co., 44 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 1995).
green
Koruga v. Fiserv Correspondent Services, Inc. (2002)
Co., 44 F.3d at 832. . 906 F.2d 315 (7th Cir.1990). .
green
Spicuzza v. Securities Services Network, Inc. (2002)
Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir. 1995). .
green
Bear Stearns & Co. v. Buehler (2001)
Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir.1995).
green
Goodman v. CIBC Oppenheimer & Co. (2001)
Michigan Mutual Insurance Company v. Unigard Security Insurance Company, 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir.1995).
Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Unigard Security Insurance Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir.1995).
Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Unigard Security Insurance *421 Co., 44 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir.1995) (citing other authority).
green
Communications Workers of America v. Gtel Corporation, Communications Workers of America v. Gtel Corporation (1995)
Co., 44 F.3d 826, 831 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Lumber & Sawmill Workers Local No. 2588, 764 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir.1985)).
green
PSM Holding Corp. v. National Farm Financial Corp. (2010)
See Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Unigard Securities Insurance Co., 44 F.3d 826, 827 (9th Cir.1995) (a quota share treaty is an agreement under which "one insurer (the 'ceding insurer’ or 'reinsured’) 'cedes' all or part of the risk it underwrites, pursuant to a policy or group of policies, to another insurer.