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 2 courts 1994–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Stasz v. Schwabgreen2 sentences2024A. Overview of Arbitral Immunity “Arbitrators have been extended the protection of judicial immunity, because they perform ‘“the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.”’ [Citations.]” (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 909 ; accord Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 650 [“[the] rule—immunizing arbitrators in private contractual arbitration proceedings from tort liability—is well established in California”]; see also Stasz v. Schwab (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 420, 431 [“‘Arbitral immunity, like judicial immunity, promotes 2024A. Overview of Arbitral Immunity “Arbitrators have been extended the protection of judicial immunity, because they perform ‘“the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.”’ [Citations.]” (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 909 ; accord Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 650 [“[the] rule—immunizing arbitrators in private contractual arbitration proceedings from tort liability—is well established in California”]; see also Stasz v. Schwab (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 420, 431 [“‘Arbitral immunity, like judicial immunity, promotes | 3 | 3 |
In Re Marriage of Assemigreen2 sentences2025THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT SCI’S CLAIM WAS COVERED BY ARBITRAL IMMUNITY “‘Arbitrators are judges chosen by the parties to decide the matters submitted to them, finally . . . . ’ (Burchell v. Marsh (1855) 58 U.S. (17 How.) 344, 349 .) Arbitrators have been extended the protection of judicial immunity, because they perform ‘“the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.”’” (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 909 .) The Legislature has found that arbitration is a favored method to resolve disputes because it reliev 2024A. Overview of Arbitral Immunity “Arbitrators have been extended the protection of judicial immunity, because they perform ‘“the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.”’ [Citations.]” (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 909 ; accord Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 650 [“[the] rule—immunizing arbitrators in private contractual arbitration proceedings from tort liability—is well established in California”]; see also Stasz v. Schwab (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 420, 431 [“‘Arbitral immunity, like judicial immunity, promotes | 2 | 4 |
Moore v. Conliffegreen2 sentences2024A. Overview of Arbitral Immunity “Arbitrators have been extended the protection of judicial immunity, because they perform ‘“the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.”’ [Citations.]” (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 909 ; accord Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 650 [“[the] rule—immunizing arbitrators in private contractual arbitration proceedings from tort liability—is well established in California”]; see also Stasz v. Schwab (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 420, 431 [“‘Arbitral immunity, like judicial immunity, promotes 2004This rule—immunizing arbitrators in private contractual arbitration proceedings from tort liability—is well established in California.” (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 650 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 152 , 871 P.2d 204 ], citations omitted.) Dating back to 1983, Division Three of this district stated: “Courts of this country have long recognized immunity to protect arbitrators from civil *431 liability for actions taken in the arbitrator’s quasi-judicial capacity . . . . | 2 | 2 |
Burchell v. Marshgreen2 sentences2025THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT SCI’S CLAIM WAS COVERED BY ARBITRAL IMMUNITY “‘Arbitrators are judges chosen by the parties to decide the matters submitted to them, finally . . . . ’ (Burchell v. Marsh (1855) 58 U.S. (17 How.) 344, 349 .) Arbitrators have been extended the protection of judicial immunity, because they perform ‘“the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.”’” (In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 909 .) The Legislature has found that arbitration is a favored method to resolve disputes because it reliev 1994“Arbitrators are judges chosen by the parties to decide the matters submitted to them, finally . . . .” (Burchell v. Marsh (1855) 58 U.S. (17 How.) 344, 349 [ 15 L.Ed. 96, 99 ].) Arbitrators have been extended the protection of judicial immunity, because they perform “ ‘the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.’ ” (Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc. (1993) 508 U.S. _ [ 124 L.Ed.2d 391, 398, fn. 8 , 113 S.Ct. 2167, 2170 ]; see also § 1280.1 [an arbitrator has the immunity, from civil liability, of a judicial officer].) For these reason | 1 | 2 |
Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc.green2 sentences1994“Arbitrators are judges chosen by the parties to decide the matters submitted to them, finally . . . .” (Burchell v. Marsh (1855) 58 U.S. (17 How.) 344, 349 [ 15 L.Ed. 96, 99 ].) Arbitrators have been extended the protection of judicial immunity, because they perform “ ‘the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.’ ” (Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc. (1993) 508 U.S. _ [ 124 L.Ed.2d 391, 398, fn. 8 , 113 S.Ct. 2167, 2170 ]; see also § 1280.1 [an arbitrator has the immunity, from civil liability, of a judicial officer].) For these reason 1994“Arbitrators are judges chosen by the parties to decide the matters submitted to them, finally . . . .” (Burchell v. Marsh (1855) 58 U.S. (17 How.) 344, 349 [ 15 L.Ed. 96, 99 ].) Arbitrators have been extended the protection of judicial immunity, because they perform “ ‘the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.’ ” (Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc. (1993) 508 U.S. _ [ 124 L.Ed.2d 391, 398, fn. 8 , 113 S.Ct. 2167, 2170 ]; see also § 1280.1 [an arbitrator has the immunity, from civil liability, of a judicial officer].) For these reason | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thiele v. RML Realty Partners
green
1 sentence2025“This strong policy has created the need for independent judgments which are free from fear of legal action. [Citation.] Arbitral immunity furthers this need.” (Thiele, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1531 .) “The application of arbitral immunity does not turn on whether the act at issue is discretionary instead of ministerial or administrative . . . . the scope of arbitral immunity is ‘defined by the functions it protects and serves.’” (Stasz v. Schwab (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 420, 431 (Stasz).) Thus, any act related to the arbitral process is protected by the immunity. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Howard v. Drapkin
green
1 sentence2024It bars civil actions against judges for acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions and it applies to all judicial determinations, including those rendered in excess of the judge’s jurisdiction, no matter how erroneous or even malicious or corrupt they may be. [Citations.] The judge is immune unless ‘he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Howard, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at 851 , fn. omitted.) An arbitrator acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction “only if the record before the arbitrator is ‘so deficient on [its] face as to signal | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Coopers & Lybrand v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2008Coopers & Lybrand v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 524 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 713 ] (Coopers) is not to the contrary, as appellants argue. 2008Coopers & Lybrand v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 524 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 713 ] (Coopers) is not to the contrary, as appellants argue. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.