McKee v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp. II’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions

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

1. ““Though [Plaintiffs] claim has some surface appeal, we think that the ‘condition precedent’ language cannot carry all the weight [Plaintiffs] would ascribe to it. Traditionally, federal courts were hostile to arbitration clauses since it was thought they could be avoided at the whim of either party. As a result, parties frequently included ‘condition precedent’ language to make certain that the arbitration process ran its course before a federal court could entertain a suit. Therefore, we read ‘condition precedent’ to some extent as an artifact left over from the days of hostility toward arbitration. To the extent that the phrase has meaning, we find that it does not undermine the binding nature of arbitration, but instead applies to the confirmation process permitted by 9 U.S.C. § 9 , or to other litigation in which the arbitration award would be final but just a sub-text in some larger litigation context.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 70 F. Supp. 2d 711 - Duke v. Crop Growers Ins., Inc. · 911 So. 2d 496 - Doleac v. Real Estate Professionals, LLC

2. “That is, the FAA [Federal Arbitration Act] “create[s] a body of federal substantive law of arbitrability, applicable to any arbitration agreement within the coverage of the Act,” and that body of federal law requires that, “in applying general state-law principles or contract interpretation to the interpretation of an agreement within the scope of the Act, ... due regard must be given to the federal policy favoring arbitration, and ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself resolved in favor of arbitration.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 88 F. Supp. 2d 482 - Dempsey v. Transouth Mortgage Corp. · 157 F. Supp. 2d 645 - Millar v. Reliastar Life Insurance

3. “Arbitration is binding only if a court may enter judgment on the award made pursuant to the arbitration. While the Louisiana Arbitration Law generally parallels the Federal Arbitration Act, there is a significant difference between the sections dealing with entry of judgment. Disputes about whether arbitration is binding can arise under the Federal Arbitration Act because the Federal Arbitration Act provides that a court may enter judgment on the arbitration only if the parties agreed that a court may enter judgment. See 9 U.S.C. § 9 . Such disputes do not arise under the Louisiana Arbitration Law because the Louisiana law provides that a court may enter judgment if the parties agreed to arbitration; the Louisiana law simply makes no provision for non-binding arbitration. See LSA-R.S. 9:4209. Thus under the Louisiana Arbitration Law, if the parties agreed to a non-binding procedure, they did not agree to arbitration.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Porter & Clements, L.L.P. v. Stone