Vimar Seguros Reaseguros Sa v. M/v Sky Reefer Mh Sa’s Empirical Analysis
29 F.3d 727 · 1994
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Vimar Seguros Reaseguros Sa v. M/v Sky Reefer (1995), Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee (1994)
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 46 · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon · Southland Corp. v. Keating · Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n agreement to arbitrate does not deprive a federal court of its jurisdiction over the underlying dispute.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“With respect to the former canon, the FAA must be given priority over COGSA in light of the FAA’s reenactment in 1947, eleven years after COGSA was passed. Similarly the latter canon suggests that the FAA be given effect. Section 3(8) of COGSA, which voids any clause in a bill of lading that “lessens” the carrier’s liability, makes no reference to arbitration, or for that matter, forum selection clauses. Conversely, the FAA specifically validates arbitration clauses contained in maritime bills of lading. See 9 U.S.C. § 1 , 2.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“American courts’ mistrust of foreign courts, a driving force in the Indussa court’s decision to invalidate foreign choice-of-forum clauses, is an inappropriate consideration in the context of arbitration. See Mitsubishi Motors, 473 U.S. at 626-27 , 105 S.Ct. at 3354 (We are “well past the time when judicial suspicion of the desirability of arbitration and of the competence of arbitral tribunals inhibited the development of arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution.”)____”
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.