Klocek v. Gateway, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2022
3 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1654 · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · Hughes v. Rowe · Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The party seeking to compel arbitration] bears an initial summary-judgment-like burden of establishing that it is entitled to arbitration. See, e.g., Par-Knit Mills, Inc. v. Stockbridge Fabrics Co., 636 F.2d 51 , 54 n. 9 (3d Cir.1980) (standard on motion to compel arbitration is same as summary judgment standard); Doctor's Assoc., Inc. v. Distajo, 944 F.Supp. 1010, 1014 (D.Conn. 1996), aff'd, 107 F.3d 126 (2d Cir.1997) (same); Dougherty v. Mieczkowski, 661 F.Supp. 267 , 270 n. 1 (D.Del.1987). Thus, [the movant] must present evidence sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. See, e.g., Oppenheimer & Co. v. Neidhardt, 56 F.3d 352, 358 (2d Cir.1995). If [the mov-ant] makes such a showing, the burden shifts to plaintiff to submit evidence demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. Id.; see also Naddy v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 88 Wash. App. 1033 , 1997 WL 749261 , , (Wash. App. Dec. 4, 1997).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Owen v. MBPXL CORP.“the act of keeping the computer past five days was not sufficient to demonstrate that Klocek expressly agreed to the standard terms.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.