Collins Radio Co. v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
467 F.2d 995 · 1972
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd. (1979), United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co. (1979)
31 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 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 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Hanna v. Plumer · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 2 of the FAA provides “that a written agreement to arbitrate in any contract involving interstate commerce or a maritime transaction ‘shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.’” The FAA “was designed ‘to overrule the judiciary’s longstanding refusal to enforce agreements to arbitrate,’ and place such agreements ‘upon the same footing as other contracts.’ ” The United States Supreme Court has stated that it “see [s] nothing in the Act indicating that the broad principle of enforceability is subject to any additional limitations under state law.” The FAA does not contain any express preemption provisions and does not indicate a congressional intent to occupy the entire field of arbitration. “But even when Congress has not completely displaced state regulation in an area, state law may nonetheless be preempted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law — that is, to the extent that it ‘stands as an obstacle to the full accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ ” Congressional passage of the FAA “was motivated first and foremost by a congressional desire to enforce agreements into which parties had entered.”... “It simply requires courts to enforce privately negotiated agreements to arbitrate, like other contracts, in accordance with their terms.” Because the FAA’s primary purpose is to ensure that arbitration agreements are enfor”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In sum, special state laws or decisions governing the validity of arbitration agreements do not apply when those agreements are contracts, or parts of contracts, ‘evidencing a transaction involving [interstate or foreign] commerce.’ ... (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The plain meaning of § 2 is that federal courts are no longer to apply state statutes and decisions which limit arbitration agreements with rules not applicable to other contracts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.