Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 659 F.2d 789 - Oil Spill by "Amoco Cadiz" off Coast of France March Amoco Transport Company v. Bugsier Reederei and Bergungs a G

Oil Spill by "Amoco Cadiz" off Coast of France March Amoco Transport Company v. Bugsier Reederei and Bergungs a G’s Empirical Analysis

659 F.2d 789 · 1981

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
14
states following
October 2019
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 6 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably United States v. Connolly (1983), McCarthy v. Azure (1994)

32 federal appellate · 6 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 14 states

4501981199020002010decided

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

Relies on M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. · Public Broadcasting Service v. Network Project · Nuclear Engineering Co. v. Scott

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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Whether a particular claim is arbitrable depends not upon the characterization of the claim, but upon the relationship of the claim to the subject matter of the arbitration clause.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “' “such questions as are basic to and underlie” ’”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Having alleged an agency relationship as a basis for its standing in the suit, it cannot slough off that relationship at will. It would advance neither judicial economy nor the purposes of the federal arbitration act to permit International to assert in a judicial forum claims grounded upon its alleged relationship to Transport and to allow it to disavow the relationship for purposes of arbitration, or to allow Transport to defeat the effect of an arbitration agreement by joining a non-signatory as a party-plaintiff in its complaint.”
    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.