598 So. 2d 1376 - Maxus, Inc. v. Sciacca’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 978 F. Supp. 266 - In Re the Arbitration Between Trans Chemical Ltd. & China National MacHiney Import & Export Corp. (1997), 847 F. Supp. 1232 - Crawford v. West Jersey Health Systems (1994)
1 district · 23 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 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Southland Corp. v. Keating · Saxis Steamship Co., Owners of the Ss Warm Springs v. Multifacs International Traders, Inc. v. American Renaissance Lines, Inc., Petitioner-Intervenor-Appellant · Bonar v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 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 25 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."”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Having held that the FAA is applicable to this case, we point out that its application is controlled by principles of `substantive federal law.' Ex parte Costa & Head [(Atrium), Ltd., 486 So.2d 1272 ], at 1275 [(Ala.1986)]. In cases governed by the FAA, the federal substantive law of arbitration governs, despite contrary state law or policy. Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 , 104 S.Ct. 852 , 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984); H.L. Fuller Construction Co. v. Industrial Development Board of the Town of Vincent, 590 So.2d 218 (Ala.1991). Further, the provisions of the FAA govern all questions of the validity, interpretation, construction and enforceability of the arbitration agreement. See Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) ; Willoughby Roofing & Supply Co. v. Kajima International, Inc., 598 F.Supp. 353 (N.D.Ala.1984), affirmed, 776 F.2d 269 (11th Cir.1985) ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) a written agreement calling for arbitration and (2) a transaction involving interstate commerce.”
2 later decisions 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.