McCarthy v. Azure’s Empirical Analysis
22 F.3d 351 · 1994
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 80 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 222 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc. (1996), Intergen N.V. v. Grina (2003)
69 federal appellate · 80 district · 32 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Kentucky v. Graham
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 222 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]ecause third-party beneficiary status constitutes an exception to the general rule that a contract does not grant enforceable rights to nonsignatories,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a person aspiring to such status must show with special clarity that the contracting parties intended to confer a benefit on him.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“situations in which the identity of the parties who have agreed to arbitrate is unclear.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morales Posada v. Cultural Care, Inc. · The Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. Maureen A. Kirschhofer, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. William E. Hudson, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. A. Bruce Kunkel, Jr., the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. Dennis R. Lindholm, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. Christopher R. Herchold, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. Robert A. Hanson,respondent, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. Douglas W. Rodwell, Jr., the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. David S. Nelson, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. Dominic W. Dinunzio, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. H.C. Tidwell, Jr., the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. Douglas Thomas, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. W. Ronald Anderson, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. Kevin J. Carr, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. Paul R. Zietlow, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. James E. Samuel,respondent, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. Stanley L. Compton, the Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company v. Michael J. Kelley
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.