Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Perry v. Thomasgreen2 sentences1998Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U., supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477 [ 109 S.Ct. at p. 1255 ].) With respect to section 2 of the act, the court has explained: “In enacting § 2 of the federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.” (Southland Corp. v. Keating, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 10 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 858 ], italics added; accord, Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto (1996) 517 U.S. 681, 684-685 [ 116 S.Ct. 1652, 1654-16 1998Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U., supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477 [ 109 S.Ct. at p. 1255 ].) With respect to section 2 of the act, the court has explained: “In enacting § 2 of the federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.” (Southland Corp. v. Keating, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 10 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 858 ], italics added; accord, Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto (1996) 517 U.S. 681, 684-685 [ 116 S.Ct. 1652, 1654-16 | 2 | 3 |
Southland Corp. v. Keatinggreen2 sentences1998Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U., supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477 [ 109 S.Ct. at p. 1255 ].) With respect to section 2 of the act, the court has explained: “In enacting § 2 of the federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.” (Southland Corp. v. Keating, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 10 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 858 ], italics added; accord, Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto (1996) 517 U.S. 681, 684-685 [ 116 S.Ct. 1652, 1654-16 1998Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U., supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477 [ 109 S.Ct. at p. 1255 ].) With respect to section 2 of the act, the court has explained: “In enacting § 2 of the federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.” (Southland Corp. v. Keating, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 10 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 858 ], italics added; accord, Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto (1996) 517 U.S. 681, 684-685 [ 116 S.Ct. 1652, 1654-16 | 1 | 2 |
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.red1 sentence2021Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Const. Corp. (1983) 460 U.S. 1, 24 [“Section 2 is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary. | 1 | 1 |
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.green2 sentences1998Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U., supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477 [ 109 S.Ct. at p. 1255 ].) With respect to section 2 of the act, the court has explained: “In enacting § 2 of the federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.” (Southland Corp. v. Keating, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 10 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 858 ], italics added; accord, Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto (1996) 517 U.S. 681, 684-685 [ 116 S.Ct. 1652, 1654-16 1998Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U., supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477 [ 109 S.Ct. at p. 1255 ].) With respect to section 2 of the act, the court has explained: “In enacting § 2 of the federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.” (Southland Corp. v. Keating, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 10 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 858 ], italics added; accord, Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto (1996) 517 U.S. 681, 684-685 [ 116 S.Ct. 1652, 1654-16 | 1 | 1 |
Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarottogreen2 sentences1998Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U., supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477 [ 109 S.Ct. at p. 1255 ].) With respect to section 2 of the act, the court has explained: “In enacting § 2 of the federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.” (Southland Corp. v. Keating, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 10 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 858 ], italics added; accord, Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto (1996) 517 U.S. 681, 684-685 [ 116 S.Ct. 1652, 1654-16 1998Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U., supra, 489 U.S. at p. 477 [ 109 S.Ct. at p. 1255 ].) With respect to section 2 of the act, the court has explained: “In enacting § 2 of the federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.” (Southland Corp. v. Keating, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 10 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 858 ], italics added; accord, Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto (1996) 517 U.S. 681, 684-685 [ 116 S.Ct. 1652, 1654-16 | 1 | 1 |
Heily v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1997Services, Inc., supra, at pp. 458-459.) “It is well settled that disputes between a member of a national stock exchange and its employee are governed by the [FAA] where there is a *634 binding arbitration agreement. [Citations.] In such instances, questions concerning the construction and scope of the arbitration clause are determined by federal law. [Citation.] However, the ‘existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate involves general contract principles, and state law governs disposition of that question. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Baker v. Aubry (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1263 [ 265 Cal.R 1997Services, Inc., supra, at pp. 458-459.) “It is well settled that disputes between a member of a national stock exchange and its employee are governed by the [FAA] where there is a *634 binding arbitration agreement. [Citations.] In such instances, questions concerning the construction and scope of the arbitration clause are determined by federal law. [Citation.] However, the ‘existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate involves general contract principles, and state law governs disposition of that question. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Baker v. Aubry (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1263 [ 265 Cal.R | 1 | 1 |
Spellman v. Securities, Annuities & Insurance Services, Inc.green2 sentences1997Services, Inc. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 452, 458 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 427 ], quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2 .) “ ‘Section 2 is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary.’ [Citations.] [^fl ‘ “In enacting § 2 of the federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Spellman v. Securities, 1997Services, Inc. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 452, 458 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 427 ], quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2 .) “ ‘Section 2 is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary.’ [Citations.] [^fl ‘ “In enacting § 2 of the federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Spellman v. Securities, | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Aubrygreen2 sentences1997Services, Inc., supra, at pp. 458-459.) “It is well settled that disputes between a member of a national stock exchange and its employee are governed by the [FAA] where there is a *634 binding arbitration agreement. [Citations.] In such instances, questions concerning the construction and scope of the arbitration clause are determined by federal law. [Citation.] However, the ‘existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate involves general contract principles, and state law governs disposition of that question. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Baker v. Aubry (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1263 [ 265 Cal.R 1997Services, Inc., supra, at pp. 458-459.) “It is well settled that disputes between a member of a national stock exchange and its employee are governed by the [FAA] where there is a *634 binding arbitration agreement. [Citations.] In such instances, questions concerning the construction and scope of the arbitration clause are determined by federal law. [Citation.] However, the ‘existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate involves general contract principles, and state law governs disposition of that question. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Baker v. Aubry (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1263 [ 265 Cal.R | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.
green
1 sentence1992The Federal Arbitration Act Whether Spellman must arbitrate his particular claim depends on the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). ( 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) Congress enacted the FAA “to reverse the longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements . . . .” (Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane, supra, 500 U.S. at p. _ [ 114 L.Ed.2d at p. 36 ].) “Its primary substantive provision states that ‘[a] written provision in any . . . contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be val | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.