Daniel v. Green, et al.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
14 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Portage Cnty. Bd. of Developmental Disabilities v. Portage Cnty. Educators' Ass'n for Developmental Disabilities (2018), Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance v. Underwriters at Lloyd's & Companies Collective (2004)
14 district · 31 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 United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. · La Vale Plaza, Inc. v. R. S. Noonan, Inc. · Courier-Citizen Company v. Boston Electrotypers Union No. 11, International Printing & Graphic Communications Union of North America
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The weight of authority clearly supports dismissal of the case when all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted to arbitration.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he question whether an arbitrator has exceeded his authority is a question of law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Arbitrators act within their authority to craft an award so long as the award 'draws its essence' from the contract—that is, 'when there is a rational nexus between the agreement and the award, and where the award is not arbitrary, capricious or unlawful.' "). {¶ 5} But despite this limit on the parameters of the court's review, we apply mixed standards when analyzing an arbitration. "When reviewing a trial court's decision to confirm, modify, vacate, or correct an arbitration award, an appellate court should accept findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous but should review questions of law de novo.”
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.