Shankle v. B-G Maintenance Management of Colorado, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
163 F.3d 1230 · 1999
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 24 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 83 - Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc. (2000), Ting v. AT&T (2003)
34 federal appellate · 24 district · 12 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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. · Stewart v. Brown · Shell Oil Co. v. Dartt
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Assuming Mr. Shankle's arbitration would have lasted an average length of time, he would have had to pay an arbitrator between $1,875 and $5,000 to resolve his claims. Mr. Shankle could not afford such a fee, and it is unlikely other similarly situated employees could either.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As Gilmer emphasized, arbitration of statutory claims works because potential litigants have an adequate forum in which to resolve their statutory claims and because the broader social purposes behind the statute are adhered to. Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 28 , 111 S.Ct. 1647 . This supposition falls apart, however, if the terms of an arbitration agreement actually prevent an individual from effectively vindicating his or her statutory rights.... Accordingly, an arbitration agreement that prohibits use of the judicial forum as a means of resolving statutory claims must also provide for an effective and accessible alternative forum.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n arbitration agreement that prohibits the use of the judicial forum as a means of resolving statutory claims must also provide for an effective and accessible alternative forum.”
4 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.