Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 573 F.3d 1113 - Thomas v. Carnival Corp.

Thomas v. Carnival Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

573 F.3d 1113 · 2009

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
October 2017
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 46 U.S.C. § 10313 · 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act)) · 9 U.S.C. § 201 · 9 U.S.C. § 205 · 9 U.S.C. § 206

Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd · Vimar Seguros Reaseguros Sa v. M/v Sky Reefer · PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. v. Book

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

  1. “(1) there is an agreement in writing within the meaning of the Convention; (2) the agreement provides for arbitration in the territory of a signatory of the Convention; (3) the agreement arises out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered commercial; and (4) a party to the agreement is not an American citizen, or that the commercial relationship has some reasonable relation with one or more foreign states.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the competent authority in the country where recognition and enforcement is sought finds that ... [t]he recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]n this case Thomas would only be arbitrating a single issue — the Seaman’s Wage Act claim, one derived solely from a U.S. statutory scheme. If, applying Panamanian law, Thomas receives no award in the arbitral forum — a distinct possibility given the U.S. based nature of his claim — he will have nothing to enforce in U.S. courts, which will be deprived of any later opportunity to review.”
    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.