Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
283 federal appellate · 65 district · 503 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,271 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. (1987), Withrow v. Larkin (1975)
283 federal appellate · 65 district · 503 state decisions — followed in 39 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedCommonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Tumey v. State of Ohio · Wilko v. Swan · Felton v. City of Pensacola
Cited together with United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Tumey v. State of Ohio · United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Morelite Construction Corp. v. New York City District Council Carpenters Benefit Funds · United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, 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 1,271 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny tribunal permitted by law to try cases and controversies not only must be unbiased but also must avoid even the appearance of bias.”
70 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a substantial interest in a firm which has done more than trivial business with a party.”
55 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(2) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them. (3) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the' controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a).”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.