In Re Van Blarcum’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1 district · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2301 (Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2302 · 15 U.S.C. § 2310 · 15 U.S.C. § 2312 · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon · Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson · Walker v. Packer
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ll claims, disputes, and controversies arising out of or relating in any way to the sale, purchase, or occupancy of the [manufactured home] including ... any claims under any warranties, either express or implied, ... or claims based on any consumer protection act or Deceptive Trade Practices Act, contract, tort, statute, common law or any alleged breach, default, and/or misrepresentation, will be resolved by means of final and binding arbitration .... This Agreement, including any contests to the validity or enforceability of this Agreement, shall be governed by the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act and the rules of the [American Arbitration Association].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Like any statutory directive, the Arbitration Act’s mandate may be overridden by a contrary congressional command. The burden is on the party opposing arbitration, however, to show that Congress intended to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue. If Congress did intend to limit or prohibit waiver of a judicial forum for a particular claim, such an intent “will be deducible from [the statute’s] text or legislative history,” or from an inherent conflict between arbitration and the statute’s underlying purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A party may appeal a judgment or decree entered under this chapter or an order: (1) denying an application to compel arbitration made under Section 171.021; (2) granting an application to stay arbitration made under Section 171.023; (3) confirming or denying confirmation of an award; (4) modifying or correcting an award; or (5) vacating an award without directing a rehearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Godt
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.