Congdon v. Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 9 U.S.C. § 3 · 9 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · Landis v. North American Co. · Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t may be advisable to stay litigation among the non-arbitrating parties pending the outcome of the arbitration. That decision is one left to the district court ... as a matter of its discretion to control its docket.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan , 514 U.S. 938 , 943, 115 S.Ct. 1920 , 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). Under the Federal Arbitration Act (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A motion to stay, therefore, is mandatory and must be granted as to all matters within the scope of the arbitration agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.