Executone Information Systems, Inc. v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
26 F.3d 1314 · 1994
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 4 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Pennzoil Exploration and Production Company (1998), Gateway Technologies, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. (1995)
37 federal appellate · 4 district · 24 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 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 11 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers · United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. · Vandygriff v. Phillips
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is well-settled that the arbitrator's jurisdiction is defined by both the contract containing the arbitration clause and the submission agreement. Piggly Wiggly Operators' Warehouse, Inc. v. Piggly Wiggly Operators' Warehouse Indep. Truck Drivers Union, Local No. 1 , 611 F.2d 580 , 583-84 (5th Cir. 1980). If the parties go beyond their promise to arbitrate and actually submit an issue to the arbitrator, we look both to the contract and to the scope of the submissions to the arbitrator to determine the arbitrator's authority. Id. at 584 ; see also United Food and Commercial *Page 466 Workers, Local Union No. 7R v. Safeway Stores, Inc. , 889 F.2d 940 , 946 (10th Cir. 1989); Sun Ship, Inc. v. Matson Navig. Co. , 785 F.2d 59 , 62 (3d Cir. 1986). Thus, the parties may agree to arbitration of disputes that they were not contractually compelled to submit to arbitration. Dorado Beach Hotel Corp. v. Union de Trabajadores de la Industria Gastronomica de Puerto Rico Local 610 , 959 F.2d 2 , 4 (1st Cir. 1992); Piggly Wiggly , 611 F.2d at 584 . As we have already concluded, the parties agreed to allow the arbitrator to decide the issue of `Alleged loss of contracts due to equipment shortages and deficiencies.' Because the parties agreed to submission of this broad issue to the arbitrator, it is irrelevant to our decision whether Executone might have properly objected to submission of the issue on the grounds of non-arbitrability. Piggly Wiggly , 611 F.2d at 584-85 . "In summary, the d”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must have a basis that is at least rationally inferable, if not obviously drawn, from the letter or purpose of the collective bargaining agreement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“single question is whether the award, however arrived at, is rationally inferable from the contract.”
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.