Scott v. Prudential Securities, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
141 F.3d 1007 · 1998
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc. (2008), Brown v. ITT Consumer Financial Corp. (2000)
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 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 7 U.S.C. § 6F · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. · Wilko v. Swan
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he alleged partiality must be `direct, definite and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain and speculative'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means. (2) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators.... (3) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party may have been prejudiced. (4) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. 9 U.S.C.A. § 10 (a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In the Eleventh Circuit, a party may challenge an arbitration award without reliance on the FAA if the award is: (1) arbitrary and capricious; (2) in contravention of public policy; or (3) entered in “manifest disregard of the law.” See Montes v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc., 128 F.3d 1456 (11th Cir.1997) (describing the first two grounds and adopting the third).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.