Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 407 F.3d 546 - Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp.

Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

407 F.3d 546 · 2005

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
3
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 29 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. (2005), Kristian v. Comcast Corp. (2006)

28 federal appellate · 29 district · 5 state decisions

400200520102020decided

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 United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. · Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph · Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson

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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[FJor the most part, general principles of state contract law control the determination of whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.”); Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Sanchez Espada, 959 F.Supp. 73, 78 (D.P.R.1997) (”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]e are not wedded to the lower court's rationale, but, rather, may affirm its order on any independent ground made manifest by the record.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A]n e-mail properly couched, can be an appropriate medium for forming an arbitration agreement.” (emphasis added)). But even had the email more clearly indicated that it contained an arbitration clause, the fact that it was delivered after enrollment and did not require any affirmative acknowledgment of receipt, see id. (”
    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.