Wilson v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 9 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant · International Paper Company v. Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen Gmbh · Jj Ryan Sons Inc v. Rhone Poulenc Textile Sa · American Recovery Corp. v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] nonsignatory is estopped from refusing to comply with an arbitration clause 'when it receives a direct benefit from a contract containing an arbitration clause.' " Pearson , 400 S.C. at 290 , 733 S.E.2d at 601 (quoting Int'l Paper Co. , 206 F.3d at 418 ). "In the arbitration context, the doctrine recognizes that a party may be estopped from asserting that the lack of his signature on a written contract precludes enforcement of the contract's arbitration clause when he has consistently maintained that other provisions of the same contract should be enforced to benefit him .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Willis“If any dispute or disagreement arises in connection with the interpretation of this Agreement, its performance or nonperformance, its termination, the figures and calculations used or any nonpayment of accounts, the parties will make efforts to meet and settle their dispute in good faith informally. If the parties cannot agree on a written settlement to the dispute within 30 days after it arises, or within a longer period agreed upon by the parties in writing, then the matter in controversy, upon request of either party, will be settled by arbitration ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Willis“although the Insureds and Agents [Petitioners] admittedly did not see the 2010 Agency Agreement prior to bringing this action, this does not control our inquiry because the allegations in the complaints necessarily depend upon the terms, authority, and duties created and imposed by that agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Willis
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.