§Why CasetextPricing

SANCHEZ v. VALENCIA HOLDING COMPANY

Respondent’s Answer Brief on the Merits

71 Cited authorities

  1. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

    563 U.S. 333 (2011)   Cited 3,742 times   601 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a ban on collective-action waivers in those contracts worked to "disfavor arbitration"

  2. First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan

    514 U.S. 938 (1995)   Cited 5,333 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a circuit court reviewing a district court's disposition of an arbitration award should apply "ordinary, not special, standards."

  3. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Intr.

    559 U.S. 662 (2010)   Cited 1,666 times   210 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prudential ripeness argument was waived

  4. Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs.

    489 U.S. 468 (1989)   Cited 3,200 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including where the parties "specify by contract the rules under which arbitration will be conducted"

  5. Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto

    517 U.S. 681 (1996)   Cited 1,857 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that Montana's first-page notice requirement, which governs not ‘any contract,’ but specifically and solely contracts ‘subject to arbitration,’ conflicts with the FAA and is therefore displaced by the federal measure."

  6. Perry v. Thomas

    482 U.S. 483 (1987)   Cited 1,330 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FAA preempted a state statute permitting litigation of wage collection actions despite the existence of a private agreement to arbitrate

  7. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.

    388 U.S. 395 (1967)   Cited 2,944 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are the proper forum to evaluate a challenge to the validity of an arbitration clause, but that where the entire agreement of which an arbitration clause is but a part is challenged, such evaluation is properly left to the arbitrator

  8. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,739 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable

  9. Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood

    565 U.S. 95 (2012)   Cited 265 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that contract “parties remain free to specify” their choice of judicial forum “so long as the guarantee ” of the Act “is preserved.”

  10. Lona v. Citibank, N.A.

    202 Cal.App.4th 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 520 times
    Holding that where the trustee's deed is void on its face, tender is not required

  11. Section 2 - Validity, irrevocability, and enforcement of agreements to arbitrate

    9 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 10,852 times   116 Legal Analyses
    Granting federal jurisdiction where there is "a transaction involving [interstate] commerce"

  12. Section 1670.5 - Contract or clause unconscionable

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5   Cited 757 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Adopting UCC section 2-302 and making it generally applicable to all contracts

  13. Section 1226 - Motor vehicle franchise contract dispute resolution process

    15 U.S.C. § 1226   Cited 35 times
    Requiring separate consent in writing to arbitrate after a dispute arises, notwithstanding any arbitration clause in a franchise agreement