Brown v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2016
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 9 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd · Wilko v. Swan · Southland Corp. v. Keating · Dominick Carcich v. Rederi A/b Nordie, and Third-Party v. Cunard Steamship Company, Ltd., Third-Party Luis Calderon v. Den Norske Syd Amerika and Bergen Steamship Company, Det. Bergenske Dampskibsselskab and Den Norske Syd Amerika Linje, Third-Party v. The Cunard Steamship Company, Ltd., Third-Party · Gavlik Construction Co. v. H. F. Campbell Co.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"But even if the defendant should have made his demand earlier, delay alone does not constitute a default or a waiver of a valid arbitration clause. Since there is a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, 'any party arguing waiver of arbitration bears a heavy burden of proof.' Belke v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith , 693 F.2d 1023 , 1025 (11th Cir. 1982) (and cases cited therein). A party opposing arbitration must also demonstrate that he had been prejudiced by the delay. See Gavlick Construction Co. v. H.F. Campbell Co. , 526 F.2d 777 , 783 (3rd Cir. 1975); Carcich v. Rederi A/B Nordie , 389 F.2d 692 , 696 (2nd Cir. 1968). This Plaintiff has failed to do. "The pretrial discovery conducted in this case cannot have prejudiced the Plaintiff in that the discovery does not appear to have been extensive. The record indicates that since the institution of this litigation there has only been one deposition taken and it was noticed by the Plaintiff. While the Defendant propounded interrogatories and has served a production request, the discovery has been limited to the issues of the Resorts International trade. There has been no discovery of the alleged wrongdoings set forth in the second amended complaint with the exception of the aforesaid trade. "In Mitsui Co. v. C. H Refinery, Inc. , 492 F. Supp. 115 (N.D.Cal. 1980) the district court upheld one party's right to arbitrate claims notwithstanding discovery initiated by both parties. The court opined: 'If the discovery re”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]ince there is a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, 'any party arguing waiver of arbitration bears a heavy burden of proof.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘[W]hen a plaintiff files an amended complaint which changes the theory or scope of the case, the defendant is allowed to plead anew as though it were the original complaint filed by Plaintiff.’ ... The obvious corollary is that if an amended complaint does not change the theory or scope of the ease, a decant [sic] must seek leave of court pursuant to Rule 15(a) before it can amend its answer to assert a counterclaim.”
1 later decision 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.