Stuart v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKey · Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any act, resolution, or rule with respect to any provision of Title 11 of the District of Columbia [Official] Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts).” D.C.Code § i-206.02(a)(4) (2012 Repl.). 6 . Like Ms. Stuart, appellants in BiotechPharma also argued that attorneys admitted to the District of Columbia Bar prior to the promulgation of Rule XIII in 1995 did not consent to the rule. In BiotechPharma , this court stated, however, that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[fjor purposes of writing an appeal ... [a]n order denying an application to compel arbitration” would”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.