General Atomic Co. v. United Nuclear Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
655 F.2d 968 · 1981
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (1989), Nieto v. Ecker (1988)
32 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 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. § 9
Relies on Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc. · Thompson v. United States · Robert Lawrence Co. v. Devonshire Fabrics, 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then ... any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award.... If no court is specified in the agreement of the parties then such application may be made to the United States court in and for the district within which such award is made.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“GAC argues that subject matter jurisdiction for confirmation of an arbitration award arises from the very language of section 9. We disagree, however, and feel that such an interpretation would work great mischief to the overall scheme of the Arbitration Act. In particular, that interpretation presents a significant possibility of eviscerating the clear limits on federal jurisdiction contained in sections 3 and 4. GAC’s expansive interpretation would mean, for example, that a district court lacking jurisdiction to compel arbitration under section 4 might nonetheless threaten to confirm a subsequent ex parte award under section 9. Such a threat would have a substantial compulsory effect. We cannot approve an interpretation which would achieve by indirection that which Congress has clearly forbidden.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 9 does not contain language common to jurisdictional grants, and to require independent jurisdictional grounds under other sections and not under Section 9 renders the Act a 'patchwork of individual statutes bereft of any coherent plan.'”
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.