Robert Lawrence Co. v. Devonshire Fabrics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
271 F.2d 402 · 1959
Citation profile
148 federal appellate · 22 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 395 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2020 · most notably Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. (1967), Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984)
148 federal appellate · 22 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 30 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
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Wilko v. Swan · Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc. · Shanferoke Coal Supply Corporation v. Westchester Service Corporation · Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co.
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 395 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract [one which “evidences” interstate commerce] ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] liberal policy of promoting arbitration both to accord with the original intention of the parties and to help ease the current congestion of court calendars.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Thus we think the text of the Act and the legislative history demonstrate that the Congress based the Arbitration Act in part on its undisputed substantive powers over commerce and maritime matters. To be sure much of the Act is purely procedural in character and is intended to be applicable only in the federal courts. But Section 2 declaring that arbitration agreements affecting commerce or maritime affairs are `valid, irrevocable, and enforceable' goes beyond this point and must mean that arbitration agreements of this character, previously held by state law to be invalid, revocable or unenforceable are now made `valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.' This is a declaration of national law equally applicable in state or federal courts .... This conclusion flows directly from the realization by the Congress that nothing of significance would have been accomplished without tapping these substantive sources of power. It is these that put teeth into the statute and make it accomplish the salutary and beneficial ends the Congress had in mind. It matters not that in the interval of years since the passage of the Act this point has only rarely been noticed.... What does matter is whether or not this reasoning is sound. And we believe it to be sound if the Congress intended to use to the fullest possible extent its powers to regulate commerce as it was affected by arbitration agreements and to do the same thing in the field of maritime law." (Emphasis added.)”
6 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.