Bowles Financial Group, Inc. v. Stifel’s Empirical Analysis
22 F.3d 1010 · 1994
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Denver Rio Grande Western Railroad Company v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (1997), Prestige Ford v. Ford Dealer Computer Services, Inc. (2003)
11 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 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 · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. · Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. · Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[B]y agreeing to arbitrate, a party trades the procedures and opportunity for review for the courtroom, for the simplicity, informality, and expedition of arbitration.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a fundamentally fair [arbitration] hearing requires only notice, opportunity to be heard and to present relevant and material evidence and argument before the decision makers. . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A judicially-created doctrine, the public policy exception provides an additional basis for reversing an arbitration award where the terms of the arbitration contract, either expressly or as interpreted by the arbitrators, violate public policy or where the award requires parties undertake some action in violation of public policy. See United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 42-44 , 108 S.Ct. 364, 373-374 , 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987); Seymour v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 988 F.2d 1020, 1023 (10th Cir.1993). The decision to reverse an award must be based on “explicit conflict with other ‘laws and legal precedents’ rather than an assessment of ‘general considerations of supposed public interests.’” Misco, 484 U.S. at 43 , 108 S.Ct. at 373 (quoting W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, Int’l Rubber Workers of Am., 461 U.S. 757, 766 , 103 S.Ct. 2177, 2183 , 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983)).”
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.