Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 569 FSUPP 821 - Willis v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.

Willis v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
3
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2010

4 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

1001983199020002010decided

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. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 3

Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc. · Lundgren v. Freeman · Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp.

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

  1. “In enacting § 2 of the federal Act, Congress declared a national policy favoring arbitration and withdrew the power of states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration____ We discern only two ■limitations on the enforceability of arbitration provisions governed by the Federal Arbitration Act: they must be part of a written contract evidencing a transaction in interstate commerce, and such clauses may be revoked upon ‘grounds as exist at law or equity for the revocation of any contract.’ We see nothing in the Act indicating that the broad principle of enforceability is subject to any additional limitations under state law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] written provision in ... a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such a contract ..., or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon any such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “reason persuasive enough to justify prohibiting arbitrators from resolving issues of punitive damages submitted by the parties”
    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.