Hoffman v. Cargill Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
236 F.3d 458 · 2001
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Associates (2009), Porzig v. Dresdner, Kleinwort, Benson, North America LLC (2007)
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 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 Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. · Stroh Container Company v. Delphi Industries Inc Delphi Industries Inc · Lee v. Chica
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“manifests disregard for the law where the arbitrators clearly identify the applicable, governing law and then proceed to ignore it.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'they get what they bargain for and that arbitration is far different from adjudication.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration— (1) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means. (2) “Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them. (3) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. (4) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. (5) “Where an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.”
2 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.