Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,472’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2016
1 district · 5 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 Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Rothenberg v. Lincoln Farm Camp, Inc. · Progressive Casualty Insurance v. C.A. Reaseguradora Nacional De Venezuela · Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Georgiadis · Bellefonte Reinsurance Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“constitutes an 'agreement in writing’ under the Federal Arbitration Act”); 9 U.S.C. § 2 (“[A]n agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”). . FINRA Rule 12100(i). There are two other National Association of Securities Dealers (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“regulated commodity accounts,” CX 2 and 3 at ¶ 16, which are not implicated here. 25 . See generally infra note 28. 26 . In Kidder, Peabody, the Second Circuit held that the excision, from a brokerage firm's Customer Agreement, of a provision authorizing either party to demand arbitration, did “not evidence a clear intent to waive the customer’s arbitration right” under the NASD Code; the Court refused to consider the contents of the transmittal letter that accompanied the revised version of the Customer Agreement, as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“and bind members); Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 728 F.2d 577, 580 (2d Cir.1984) (”
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.