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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 25 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. v. Spence Bros..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. v. Spence Bros. Anchor | green | “an allegation that the arbitrators have exceeded their powers must be carefully evaluated in order to assure that this claim is not used as a ruse to induce the court to review the merits of the arbitrators' decision.” | 12 |
| 2 | Washington v. Washington | green | “this court reviews de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award.” | 9 |
| 3 | Fette v. Peters Construction Co | green | “a court may not review an arbitrator's factual findings or decision on the merits.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.