Uhc Management Company Inc v. Computer Sciences Corporation Computer Sciences Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
148 F.3d 992 · 1998
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc. (2008), Cable Connection, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc. (2008)
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 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. · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Southland Corp. v. Keating · Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Where there was an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the award. (b) Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them, unless it is a matter not affecting the merits of the decision upon the matter submitted. (c) Where the award is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Judicial review of an arbitration award is extremely limited.” Kiernan [v. Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc.], 137 F.3d [588,] 594 [ (8th Cir.1998) ]. We may not set an award aside simply because we might have interpreted the agreement differently or because the arbitrators erred in interpreting the law or in determining the facts. Although this result may seem draconian, the rules of law limiting judicial review and the judicial process in the arbitration context are well established and the parties here, both sophisticated in the realms of business and law, can be presumed to have been well versed in the consequences of their decision to resolve their disputes in this manner. Stroh Container Co., 783 F.2d at 751 (citation omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Congress has ordained a specific, self-limiting procedure for how such a review is to occur. Section 9 of the FAA provides that federal courts “must grant” an order confirming an arbitration award “unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.” Congress did not authorize de novo review of such an award on its merits; it commanded that when the exceptions do not apply, a federal court has no choice but to confirm.”
2 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.