182 F. Supp. 2d 902 - Ting v. AT & T’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 47 U.S.C. § 151 · 47 U.S.C. § 160 · 47 U.S.C. § 207 · 5 U.S.C. § 574 · 9 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Jones v. Rath Packing Co.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This lawsuit is not about arbitration 17 ... [Under the guise of requiring arbitration, the company] was actually rewriting substantially the legal landscape on which its customers must contend ... [the company] sought to shield itself from liability ... by imposing Legal Remedies Provisions that eliminate class actions, sharply curtail damages in cases of misrepresentation, fraud, and other intentional torts, cloak the arbitration process with secrecy and place significant financial hurdles in the path of a potential litigant. It is not just that [the company] wants to litigate in the forum of its choice — arbitration; it is that [the company] wants to make it very difficult for anyone to effectively vindicate her rights, even in that forum. That is illegal and unconseionable[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““ ‘Any arbitration shall remain confidential. Neither you nor AT&T may disclose the existence, content or results of any arbitration or award, except as may he required by law or to confirm and enforce an award.’ ” Ting v. AT&T, 182 F. Supp. 2d 902, 931 (N.D. Cal. 2002), aff’d in part & rev’d in part, 319 F. 3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2003).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e conclude that when an employer imposes mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment, the arbitration agreement or arbitration process cannot generally require the employee to bear any type of expense that the employee would not be required to bear if he or she were free to bring the action in court.”
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.