Mactec, Inc. v. Gorelick’s Empirical Analysis
427 F.3d 821 · 2005
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 12 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Pelt v. Utah (2008), Rhoten v. Dickson (2010)
16 federal appellate · 12 district · 9 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. · Wilko v. Swan · McDonald v. City of West Branch · Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. entry of a final judgment in the earlier proceedings, 2. identity or privity of the parties in the two suits, 3. identity of the cause of action in both suits, and 4. a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim in the earlier proceedings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The agreement here preserves district court review under 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(3), and while an unsatisfied defendant would not be able to appeal a district court order denying his application to vacate the award, so too would an unsatisfied plaintiff be unable to contest a district court's vacatur of an arbitration award in plaintiff's favor. From the parties' perspective, then, the risks of a negative outcome resulting from the non-appealability clause are borne equally by both sides. What we have here is something less than full judicial review of the arbitrator's decision; but we do not have a situation in which there is no judicial review at all, nor a situation where a court is asked to enforce an arbitration award without being given the authority to review compliance of that award with the FAA. It is, in a sense, a compromise whereby the litigants trade the risk of protracted appellate review for a one-shot opportunity before the district court. [ Id. at 829-30 (footnote omitted).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“use their reasonable best efforts to resolve such dispute, and in the event that they are unable to do so such dispute shall be resolved by Steven Sherrill, whose decision in such matters shall be binding and conclusive upon each of the parties hereto and shall not be subject to any type of review or appeal whatsoever.”
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.