Drayer v. Krasner’s Empirical Analysis
572 F.2d 348 · 1978
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Perry v. Thomas (1987), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bobker (1986)
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 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
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Wilko v. Swan · Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. · Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Insofar as Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 436-37, 440 , 74 S.Ct. 182 , 98 L.Ed. 168 (1953), introduced the nonstatutory ground of ‘manifest disregard’ of the law as a basis for vacating arbitration awards, this presupposed ‘something beyond and different from a mere error in the law or failure on the part of the arbitrators to understand or apply the law.’ San Martine Compania de Navegacion, S.A. v. Saguenay Terminals Ltd., 293 F.2d 796, 801 (9 Cir.1961); Sarxis S.S. Co. v. Multifacs Int’l Traders, Inc., 375 F.2d 577, 581-82 (2 Cir.1967); see also Sobel v. Hertz, Warner & Co., 469 F.2d 1211, 1214 (2 Cir.1972).””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]ailure to take an authorized appeal from an interlocutory order does not preclude raising the question on appeal from the final judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) [w]here the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (b) [w]here there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators ...; (c) [wjhere the arbitrators were guilty of [specific types of] misconduct ...; or (d) [w]here the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award ... was not made.”
2 later decisions 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.