Seetransport Wiking Trader Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH & Co., Kommanditgesellschaft v. Navimpex Centrala Navala & Uzinexportimport’s Empirical Analysis
29 F.3d 79 · 1994
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Friedrich v. Friedrich (1996), Curley v. AMR Corp. (1998)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 201
Relies on Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba · Seetransport Wiking Trader Schiffarhtsgesellschaft MBH & Co. v. Navimpex Centrala Navala · Fotochrome, Inc., Debtor-Appellant v. Copal Company, Limited, Claimant-Appellee · In re the Arbitration between Waterside Ocean Navigation Co. & International Navigation Ltd. · Island Territory of Curacao v. Solitron Devices, 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the process of obtaining exequatur in France allows the losing party in an arbitration to challenge the award on the bases enumerated in the Convention. Indeed, [the defendant] did challenge the award on Convention grounds before the Paris Court of Appeals. Thus, the policy consideration that motivated our decision in Fotochrome to refuse to treat the arbitral award as a foreign judgment does not apply here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.