possibility of a fair hearing (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

possibility of a fair hearing in California

8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2023 2 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Haworth v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Countygreen
cal · 2010 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017(See Smith v. Campbell & Facciolla, Inc. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 134, 135 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 606 ]; Totem Marine, supra, 607 F.2d at p. 651 .) “ ‘[Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing “. . . when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.” [Citation.]’ ” (Hoso, supra, at pp. 888-889 ; see also Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 395 (dis. opn. of Werdegar, J.) [although arbitration finality is critical, “[a]n equally vital principle” is that the arbitration system must have “sufficient integrity that parties can be confident they w

2017(See Smith v. Campbell & Facciolla, Inc. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 134, 135 ; Totem Marine, supra, 607 F.2d at p. 651 .) " '[A]rbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing . . . "when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing." [Citation.]' " ( Hoso, supra, at pp. 888-889 ; see also Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 395 (dis. opn. of Werdegar, J.) [although arbitration finality is critical, "[a]n equally vital principle" is that the arbitration system must have "sufficient integrity that parties can be confident they will receive a fair

22
Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.green
cal · 1981 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1985–2009
2 sentences

2009Partnership v. Cheung (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 340 ].) Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing “only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.” (Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 807, 826, fn. 23 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 ] (Scissor-Tail).) “Moreover, ‘[arbitrators, unless specifically required to act in conformity with rules of law, may base their decision upon broad principles of justice and equity, and in doing so may expressly or impliedly

2009Partnership v. Cheung (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 340 ].) Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing “only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.” (Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 807, 826, fn. 23 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 ] (Scissor-Tail).) “Moreover, ‘[arbitrators, unless specifically required to act in conformity with rules of law, may base their decision upon broad principles of justice and equity, and in doing so may expressly or impliedly

22
Smith v. Campbell & Facciolla, Inc.green
calctapp · 1962 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017(See Smith v. Campbell & Facciolla, Inc. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 134, 135 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 606 ]; Totem Marine, supra, 607 F.2d at p. 651 .) “ ‘[Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing “. . . when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.” [Citation.]’ ” (Hoso, supra, at pp. 888-889 ; see also Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 395 (dis. opn. of Werdegar, J.) [although arbitration finality is critical, “[a]n equally vital principle” is that the arbitration system must have “sufficient integrity that parties can be confident they w

2017(See Smith v. Campbell & Facciolla, Inc. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 134, 135 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 606 ]; Totem Marine, supra, 607 F.2d at p. 651 .) “ ‘[Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing “. . . when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.” [Citation.]’ ” (Hoso, supra, at pp. 888-889 ; see also Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 395 (dis. opn. of Werdegar, J.) [although arbitration finality is critical, “[a]n equally vital principle” is that the arbitration system must have “sufficient integrity that parties can be confident they w

12
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasegreen
cal · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009Partnership v. Cheung (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 340 ].) Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing “only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.” (Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 807, 826, fn. 23 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 ] (Scissor-Tail).) “Moreover, ‘[arbitrators, unless specifically required to act in conformity with rules of law, may base their decision upon broad principles of justice and equity, and in doing so may expressly or impliedly

2009Partnership v. Cheung (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 340 ].) Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing “only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.” (Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 807, 826, fn. 23 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 ] (Scissor-Tail).) “Moreover, ‘[arbitrators, unless specifically required to act in conformity with rules of law, may base their decision upon broad principles of justice and equity, and in doing so may expressly or impliedly

11
Sy First Family Ltd. Partnership v. Cheunggreen
calctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009Partnership v. Cheung (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 340 ].) Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing “only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.” (Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 807, 826, fn. 23 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 ] (Scissor-Tail).) “Moreover, ‘[arbitrators, unless specifically required to act in conformity with rules of law, may base their decision upon broad principles of justice and equity, and in doing so may expressly or impliedly

2009Partnership v. Cheung (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 340 ].) Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing “only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.” (Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 807, 826, fn. 23 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 623 P.2d 165 ] (Scissor-Tail).) “Moreover, ‘[arbitrators, unless specifically required to act in conformity with rules of law, may base their decision upon broad principles of justice and equity, and in doing so may expressly or impliedly

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Hoso Foods, Inc. v. Columbus Club, Inc. green
calctapp · 2010
2 sentences

2023Moreover, arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing “‘“only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.” [Citation.]’” (Hoso Foods, Inc. v. Columbus Club, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 881, 888-889 .) Appellants have not demonstrated that the discovery limitations crossed that high threshold.

2022(Hoso Foods, Inc. v. Columbus Club, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 881 , 888- 889.) “Because the rules of evidence and judicial procedure do not apply to arbitration proceedings absent the parties’ agreement, ‘[a]rbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing ‘only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Further, the California Supreme Court has instructed that “section 1286.2 subdivision (a)(5), ‘if not properly limited, could swallow the rule that arbitration a

32017–2023
Totem Marine Tug & Barge, Inc. v. North American Towing, Inc. green
ca5 · 1979
2 sentences

2017(See Smith v. Campbell & Facciolla, Inc. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 134, 135 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 606 ]; Totem Marine, supra, 607 F.2d at p. 651 .) “ ‘[Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing “. . . when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.” [Citation.]’ ” (Hoso, supra, at pp. 888-889 ; see also Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 395 (dis. opn. of Werdegar, J.) [although arbitration finality is critical, “[a]n equally vital principle” is that the arbitration system must have “sufficient integrity that parties can be confident they w

2017(See Smith v. Campbell & Facciolla, Inc. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 134, 135 ; Totem Marine, supra, 607 F.2d at p. 651 .) " '[A]rbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing . . . "when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing." [Citation.]' " ( Hoso, supra, at pp. 888-889 ; see also Haworth, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 395 (dis. opn. of Werdegar, J.) [although arbitration finality is critical, "[a]n equally vital principle" is that the arbitration system must have "sufficient integrity that parties can be confident they will receive a fair

22017–2017
Sanchez v. Western Pizza Enterprises, Inc. green
calctapp · 2009
2 sentences

2015II Pointe next contends it was deprived of a fair hearing for multiple reasons, each of which we will address in turn. "[A]rbitration procedures that interfere with a party's right to a fair hearing are reviewable on appeal." (Hoso Foods, Inc. v. Columbus Club, Inc., supra, 190 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 888.) "Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing 'only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.'" (Sanchez v. Western Pizza Enterprises, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 154, 177 .) Pointe argues the

2010(Sanchez v. Western Pizza Enterprises, Inc., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 177 .) Rodela had neither the knowledge nor the incentive to effectively represent appellant’s interests at the arbitration.

22010–2015
Heimlich v. Shivji green
cal · 2019
1 sentence

2022(Hoso Foods, Inc. v. Columbus Club, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 881 , 888- 889.) “Because the rules of evidence and judicial procedure do not apply to arbitration proceedings absent the parties’ agreement, ‘[a]rbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing ‘only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Further, the California Supreme Court has instructed that “section 1286.2 subdivision (a)(5), ‘if not properly limited, could swallow the rule that arbitration a

12022–2022
Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Inc. v. Oakland Raiders, Ltd. green
calctapp · 1988
1 sentence

2015In this regard, "it is fundamental that a contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the intent of the parties at the time the contract was entered into." (Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Inc. v. Oakland Raiders, Ltd. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1057 , italics added; see Civ.

12015–2015

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check