Charles Grigson River City Films Inc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
15 district · 92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 205 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably In Re Weekley Homes, L.P. (2005), 109 Cal. App. 4th 1705 - Metalclad Corp. v. Ventana Environmental Organizational Partnership (2003)
15 district · 92 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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. · United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan
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 205 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, equitable estoppel applies when the signatory to a written agreement containing an arbitration clause must rely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting its claims against the nonsignatory. When each of a signatory’s claims against a nonsignatory makes reference to or presumes the existence of the written agreement, the signatory’s claims arise out of and relate directly to the written agreement, and arbitration is appropriate. Second, application of equitable estoppel is warranted when the signatory to the contract containing an arbitration clause raises allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract. Otherwise the arbitration proceedings between the two signatories would be rendered meaningless and the federal policy in favor of arbitration effectively thwarted.”
40 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n certain limited instances, pursuant to an equitable estoppel doctrine, a non-signatory-to-an-arbitration-agreement-defendant can nevertheless compel arbitration against a signatory-plaintiff. .... The linchpin for equitable estoppel is equity-fairness. For the case at hand, to not apply this intertwined-claims basis to compel arbitration would fly in the face of fairness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an agreement, it is within the district court's discretion to give effect to that agreement's terms in claims against nonsignatories. See id. at 528-29 (internal quotation marks omitted) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by applying equitable estoppel to compel arbitration of signatories' claim against nonsignatory defendants). Here, the Van Rooyens' claims against the remaining defendants are all”
1 later decision 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.