Siegel v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TURNER, P. J.—
I. Introduction
Defendants, the Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) and James Dinges, appeal from a judgment denying their petition to vacate an arbitration award. Additionally, they appeal from a judgment confirming the award in favor of plaintiff, Howard Siegel. Defendants argue that the manifest disregard for the law standard of review of the merits of an arbitration award must be applied to this case because California’s rule, which prohibits such, is preempted by the provisions of 9 United States Code sections 10 and 12 1 of the United States…
2Cases cited64 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Cable Connection, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2008
- SWAB FINANCIAL v. E Trade SecuritiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Muao v. Grosvenor Properties, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Ovitz v. SchulmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Alexander v. Blue Cross of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.