Wallace v. Buttar’s Empirical Analysis
378 F.3d 182 · 2004
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Dh Blair Co Inc Dh v. Gottdiener Dh J (2006), Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction (2006)
13 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 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 Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. · Newton v. Standard Fire Insurance · Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bobker · DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. · Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'convinced that the arbitration panel made the wrong call on the law. On the contrary, the award should be enforced, despite a court's disagreement with it on the merits, if there is a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.' " Phx. Bulk Carriers, Ltd. v. Am. Metals Trading, LLP , No. 10 Civ. 2963(NRB), 2013 WL 5863608 , at (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2013) (quoting Wallace v. Buttar , 378 F.3d 182 , 190 (2d Cir. 2004) ). This Court finds far more than the "barely colorable justification”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, we must consider whether the law that was allegedly ignored was clear, and in fact explicitly applicable to the matter before the arbitrators. An arbitrator obviously cannot be said to disregard a law that is unclear or not clearly applicable. Thus, misapplication of an ambiguous law does not constitute manifest disregard. Second, ... we must find that the law was in fact improperly applied, leading to an erroneous outcome.... Even where explanation for an award is deficient or non-existent, we will confirm it if a justifiable ground for the decision can be inferred from the facts of the case. Third, ... we look to a subjective element, that is, the knowledge actually possessed by the arbitrators. In order to intentionally disregard the law, the arbitrator must have known of its existence, and its applicability to the problem before him.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A litigant seeking to vacate an arbitration award based on alleged manifest disregard of the law bears a heavy burden [and a court must find] both that (1) the arbitrator[ ] knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrator[ ] was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case.”
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.