548 So. 2d 157 - Ex Parte Warren’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2003 · most notably Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps (1992), Jim Burke Automotive, Inc. v. Beavers (1996)
31 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 15 U.S.C. § 1221 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1381 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1601 (§ 102 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1901 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2301 (Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon · Southland Corp. v. Keating · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Davis · Metro Industrial Painting Corp. v. Terminal Construction 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“contemplated substantial interstate activity”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Thus, we hold that, under the narrow factual context of this case , there is no basis for invoking the FAA, and an arbitration clause contained in the contract cannot be enforced under Alabama law."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““We hold that the appropriate standard for making this determination is set forth in a special opinion in Metro Industrial Painting Corp. v. Terminal Construction Co., 287 F.2d 382 (2d Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 817 , 82 S.Ct. 31 , 7 L.Ed.2d 24 (1961): “ ‘[W]hether at the time [the parties] entered into [the contract] and accepted the arbitration clause, they contemplated substantial interstate activity.’ “287 F.2d at 387 (Lumbard, Chief Judge, concurring) (emphasis original). See, also, Burke County Public Schools Board of Education v. Shaver, 303 N.C. 408 , 279 S.E.2d 816, 822 (1981) (applying the Metro Industrial test). “Therefore, the standard here applicable is not the ‘regulating standard’ of ‘affecting interstate commerce’; rather the test for determining whether the transaction involves interstate commerce is a distinct standard unique to the application of the FAA. See Burke, supra, 279 S.E.2d at 822 (footnote 11).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.