ACE Capital Re Overseas Ltd. v. Central United Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
307 F.3d 24 · 2002
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · Collins & Aikman Products Co. v. Building Systems, 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any dispute ... between the Company and Insured with reference to the interpretation of [the RPA], or their rights with respect to any transaction involved.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“arbitration of even a collateral matter will be ordered if the claim alleged implicates issues of contract construction or the parties' rights and obligations under it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We decline to overrule In re Kinoshi-ta, despite its inconsistency with federal policy favoring arbitration, particularly in international business disputes, because we are concerned that contracting parties may have (in theory at least) relied on that case in their formulation of an arbitration provision. We see no reason, however, why we may not confine Kinoshita to its precise facts. We are confident that parties who have actually relied on Kinoshita in an attempt to formulate a narrow arbitration provision, have adopted the exact language of the arbitration provision involved in Ki-noshita. The provision involved in Ki-noshita required arbitration of “any dispute or difference arising] under” the agreement. Thus, to ensure that an arbitration clause is narrowly interpreted contracting parties must use the foregoing phrase or its equivalent, although the better course, obviously, would be to specify exactly which claims are and are not arbitrable.”
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.