Bess v. Check Express’s Empirical Analysis
294 F.3d 1298 · 2002
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Jenkins v. First American Cash Advance of Georgia, LLC (2005), Musnick v. King Motor Co. (2003)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph · Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto · Three Valleys Municipal Water District v. E.F. Hutton & Co. · United States of America v. Norma Burgos-Andjar
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Colburn urges that the transactions in this case are void, not because he failed to assent to the essential terms of the contracts, but because those terms allegedly render the contracts illegal under Alabama law. At bottom, Colburn challenges the content of the contracts, not their existence. Indeed, unlike the contracts in Chastain, both the arbitration agreement and the deferred payment contracts were signed by Colburn, and there is no question about Colburn’s assent to those contracts. Thus, this case falls within the “normal circumstances” described in Chastain, where the parties have signed a presumptively valid agreement to arbitrate any disputes, including those about the validity of the underlying transaction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“) makes valid any written agreement to arbitrate a dispute arising out of a transaction involving interstate commerce. 9 U.S.C. § 4 . Where a party to such an agreement fails or refuses to arbitrate, the other party may move for an order compelling arbitration. Id. Furthermore, Section 4 of the FAA requires that the district court”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Bess v. Check Express, 294 F.3d 1298, 1304 (11th Cir.2002). However, if the making of the arbitration agreement is in issue,”
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.