Hughes Training Inc. v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
254 F.3d 588 · 2001
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably 826 So. 2d 709 - East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor (2002), Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (2004)
22 federal appellate · 10 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 First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. · Delaware v. New York · Sanders Confectionery Products Inc. v. Heller Financial, Inc.
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] district court may vacate an award only if: (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) there is evidence of partiality or corruption among the arbitrators; (3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct which prejudiced the rights of one of the parties; or (4) the arbitrators exceeded their powers. 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a). An additional ground for vacating an arbitration award is that in making the award the arbitrator acted with manifest disregard for the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Contracts in which one party has minimal bargaining power, also referred to as contracts of adhesion, are not automatically void. See Dillard v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 961 F.2d 1148, 1154 (5TH Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1079 , 113 S.Ct. 1046 , 122 L.Ed.2d 355 (1993); In re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 987 S.W.2d 571, 574 (Tex.1999). "Instead, the party seeking to avoid the contract generally must show that it is unconscionable." Id. "There is nothing per se unconscionable about arbitration agreements." EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 934 S.W.2d 87, 90 (Tex.1996).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Either party may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction ... to enforce an arbitration award. A party opposing enforcement of an award may bring a separate action in any court of competent jurisdiction to set aside the award, where the standard of review will be the same as that applied by an appellate court reviewing a decision of a trial court sitting without a jury. (Emphasis added).”
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.