Fit Tech Inc’s Empirical Analysis
374 F.3d 1 · 2004
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Awuah v. Coverall North America, Inc. (2009), Combined Energies v. CCI, Inc. (2008)
19 federal appellate · 8 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
Relies on Taylor v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. · Carson v. American Brands, Inc. · Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. · Henderson v. Brown
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since no one has been prejudicially misled by [defendant's] request for an over-favorable remedy of dismissal, its request for dismissal in favor of the accountant remedy can be treated as encompassing the lesser alternative remedy of a stay and reference.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he courts are divided as to whether a request to dismiss a case based on an arbitration clause should be treated as a request for an order compelling arbitration.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Absent admissible extrinsic evidence bearing upon intent, a court in interpreting disputed contract language asks what reasonable persons in the position of the parties would ordinarily have intended by using the words in question in the circumstances. 2 Farnsworth on Contracts §§ 7.9, 7.10 (3d ed. 2004), a view followed in Illinois; Horbach v. Kaczmarek, 988 F.Supp. 1126, 1129 (N.D.Ill.1997); Tatar v. Maxon Constr. Co., 54 Ill.2d 64 , 294 N.E.2d 272 (1973). By this test, referring the operational issues to the accountants makes no sense. The phrase “any disagreement” refers to earning schedules whose components are defined in detail in the purchase agreement in accounting terms: specifically, the EBITDA formula for earnings of the eight centers before certain other costs (e.g., interest, taxes, depreciation) are taken into account. And, the unresolved disagreements are to be referred to “accountants.” In context, it therefore makes most sense to read “any disagreements” as referring to disagreements about accounting issues arising in the calculations that underpin the schedules. Conversely, it makes no sense to assume that accountants would be entrusted with evaluating disputes about the operation of the business in question. Yes, operational misconduct may well affect the level of earnings and therefore the schedules, but the misconduct itself would not be a breach of proper accounting standards. Nor would one expect accountants to have special competence in deciding whethe”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.