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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Century City Med. Plaza v. Sperling, Isaacs & Eisenberggreen2 sentences2006(Century City Medical Plaza v. Sperling, Isaacs & Eisenberg (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 865, 877 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 ] [an arbitrator’s power to correct an award after it has been issued to the parties is limited to “evident miscalculations of figures or descriptions of persons, things or property” and an arbitrator may not correct an award that he intended on the ground that he later determined a factual or legal error had been made in the award].) Fourth, the parties retained their rights under sections 1286.2, 1286.4, 1286.6, and 1286.8, which means a petition to vacate the award could be grant 2006(Century City Medical Plaza v. Sperling, Isaacs & Eisenberg (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 865, 877 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 ] [an arbitrator’s power to correct an award after it has been issued to the parties is limited to “evident miscalculations of figures or descriptions of persons, things or property” and an arbitrator may not correct an award that he intended on the ground that he later determined a factual or legal error had been made in the award].) Fourth, the parties retained their rights under sections 1286.2, 1286.4, 1286.6, and 1286.8, which means a petition to vacate the award could be grant | 2 | 2 |
Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority v. CC Partnersgreen2 sentences2006(Crowell v. Downey Community Hospital Foundation (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 730, 735-740 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ]; Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority v. CC Partners (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 635, 638 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 363 ]; Old Republic Ins. 2006(Crowell v. Downey Community Hospital Foundation (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 730, 735-740 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ]; Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority v. CC Partners (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 635, 638 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 363 ]; Old Republic Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Crowell v. Downey Community Hospital Foundationgreen2 sentences2006(Crowell v. Downey Community Hospital Foundation (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 730, 735-740 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ]; Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority v. CC Partners (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 635, 638 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 363 ]; Old Republic Ins. 2006(Crowell v. Downey Community Hospital Foundation (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 730, 735-740 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 ]; Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority v. CC Partners (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 635, 638 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 363 ]; Old Republic Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.green2 sentences2002(See, e.g., Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 782, 788 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 603 , 996 P.2d 706 ; Moshonov v. Walsh (2000) 22 Cal.4th 771, 776 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 597 , 996 P.2d 699 ; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 372-376 , 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ; Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 , 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 .) Courts generally may not correct arbitration awards, which are both binding and final, even if an award is based on an arbitrator's factual or legal error. ( Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th 2002(See, e.g., Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 782, 788 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 603 , 996 P.2d 706 ; Moshonov v. Walsh (2000) 22 Cal.4th 771, 776 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 597 , 996 P.2d 699 ; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 372-376 , 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ; Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 , 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 .) Courts generally may not correct arbitration awards, which are both binding and final, even if an award is based on an arbitrator's factual or legal error. ( Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispogreen2 sentences2002(See, e.g., Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 782, 788 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 603 , 996 P.2d 706 ; Moshonov v. Walsh (2000) 22 Cal.4th 771, 776 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 597 , 996 P.2d 699 ; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 372-376 , 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ; Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 , 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 .) Courts generally may not correct arbitration awards, which are both binding and final, even if an award is based on an arbitrator's factual or legal error. ( Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th 2002(See, e.g., Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 782, 788 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 603 , 996 P.2d 706 ; Moshonov v. Walsh (2000) 22 Cal.4th 771, 776 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 597 , 996 P.2d 699 ; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 372-376 , 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ; Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 , 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 .) Courts generally may not correct arbitration awards, which are both binding and final, even if an award is based on an arbitrator's factual or legal error. ( Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th | 1 | 1 |
Moshonov v. Walshgreen2 sentences2002(See, e.g., Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 782, 788 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 603 , 996 P.2d 706 ; Moshonov v. Walsh (2000) 22 Cal.4th 771, 776 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 597 , 996 P.2d 699 ; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 372-376 , 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ; Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 , 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 .) Courts generally may not correct arbitration awards, which are both binding and final, even if an award is based on an arbitrator's factual or legal error. ( Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th 2002(See, e.g., Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 782, 788 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 603 , 996 P.2d 706 ; Moshonov v. Walsh (2000) 22 Cal.4th 771, 776 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 597 , 996 P.2d 699 ; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 372-376 , 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ; Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 , 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 .) Courts generally may not correct arbitration awards, which are both binding and final, even if an award is based on an arbitrator's factual or legal error. ( Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Landis v. Pinkertons, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022A court may correct and confirm an award as corrected for evident miscalculation of figures or evident mistake in a description, where the award exceeds the powers of the arbitrator (if the correction does not affect the merits of the decision on the controversy submitted), and for nonsubstantive matters of form.” ( Elliott, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at pp. 501– 502, fns. omitted.) However, “ ‘apart from those statutory exceptions, an arbitrator may not correct an award that he or she intended on the ground that he or she later determined a factual or legal error had been made in the award.’ (Ital | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
green
2 sentences2002(See, e.g., Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 782, 788 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 603 , 996 P.2d 706 ; Moshonov v. Walsh (2000) 22 Cal.4th 771, 776 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 597 , 996 P.2d 699 ; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 372-376 , 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ; Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 , 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 .) Courts generally may not correct arbitration awards, which are both binding and final, even if an award is based on an arbitrator's factual or legal error. ( Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th 2002(See, e.g., Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 782, 788 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 603 , 996 P.2d 706 ; Moshonov v. Walsh (2000) 22 Cal.4th 771, 776 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 597 , 996 P.2d 699 ; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 372-376 , 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ; Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 , 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 .) Courts generally may not correct arbitration awards, which are both binding and final, even if an award is based on an arbitrator's factual or legal error. ( Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Porter v. Scott
neutral
1 sentence2001As one court recently put it, “It is, apparently, an ancient rule that ‘when arbitrators have published their award by delivering it to the parties as the award, that it is not the subject of revision or correction by them, and that any alteration without the consent of the parties will vitiate it.’ (Porter v. Scott (1857) 7 Cal. 312, 316 .) The briefing in the Porter case cited precedent back to a Yearbook of Henry VI, as well as other venerable authority. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.