Gingiss International, Inc. v. Bormet’s Empirical Analysis
58 F.3d 328 · 1995
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Charles Grigson River City Films Inc, Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. (1999)
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 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. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 9
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson
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.
“(1) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means. (2) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them. (3) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. (4) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) not discoverable upon the exercise of due diligence prior to the arbitration; (2) materially related to an issue in the arbitration; and (3) established by clear and convincing evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“did not waive ... [his arbitrable] claims by prosecuting the unlawful detainer action in California state court because that action involved different issues”
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.