This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Focus (Forum & Focus)

Sep. 11, 2009

Beyond Review?

A recent appellate case may have effectively narrowed the gap between the two classes of private arbitration litigants, writes David S. Olson.

FOCUS COLUMN

By David S. Olson

In the seminal case of Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (1992), the California Supreme Court held that errors of law in California arbitration decisions, even those causing substantial injustice, may not be vacated by the courts except for grounds expressly set forth in section 1286.2 of California's Code of Civil Procedure. The Moncharsh court reasoned that parties to arbitration agreements acce...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up