Saika v. Gold
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
J(1) Arbitration has become highly favored as an economical, efficient alternative to traditional litigation in law courts. (See, e.g., Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183, 832 P.2d 899] [“the Legislature has expressed a ‘strong public policy in favor of arbitration. . . .”’]; Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Street (1983) 35 Cal.3d 312, 322 [197 CaLRptr. 581, 673 P.2d 251] [“speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution”]; Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 707 [131…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Madden v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, Higway & Transportation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Blanton v. Womancare, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1985
- Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.California Supreme Court · 2015
- Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2003
- Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- Kinney v. United Healthcare Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.