M & C Corporation v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co. KG’s Empirical Analysis
143 F.3d 1033 · 1998
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Sharon Floss Ryan's Family Steak Houses Inc et al v. Kyle Daniels (2000), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc. (1999)
7 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Catlin v. United States · Arnold v. Arnold Corporation--Printed Communications for Business · Corporation v. Erwin Behr Gmbh & Co Kg
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The only ‘order’ the arbitrator could have referred to was the form entitled ‘Purchase Order,’ not a form entitled ‘Material Release.’ The ‘Purchase Order’ is the only order that M & C had direct involvement in ‘actively solicit[ing]’ from customers. Whereas, it is based entirely on the customer’s needs when the goods ordered via the Purchase Order are ‘released.’ The arbitrator determined, and this court agrees, that the primary intent of the parties’ agreement was to provide M & C the equitable relief of specific commissions for work that it had actively solicited. Thus, as the only ‘order’ that M & C had any involvement in actively soliciting were Purchase Orders, which were also the only ‘orders’ that were before the arbitrator to consider, the arbitrator has necessarily determined that ‘new orders’ refers to new ‘Purchase Orders.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be received prior to the three years following termination of the contract; and 2) such an order must have materialized as a result of the”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“which triggered the receipt of money from the customer and the”
3 later decisions 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.