Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 667 F.2d 804 - O'Neel v. National Association of Securities Dealers Inc

O'Neel v. National Association of Securities Dealers Inc’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
8
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 7 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc. (1994), 178 Cal. App. 3d 632 - Chan v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. (1986)

4 federal appellate · 7 district · 9 state decisions

1801980199020002010decided

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 Wilko v. Swan · Conticommodity Services Inc Philipp Lion · Ayres v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. · Connor v. Finch · Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,322 Fred Danford v. Albert E. Schwabacher, Jr.

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

  1. “that the validity of time-barred defenses to enforcement of arbitration agreements should generally be determined by the arbitrator rather than by the court.... [and] specifically renounc[ing] the contention that the defense of the statute of limitations goes to jurisdiction of the tribunal, whether it be judicial or arbitration”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The principle that an arbitration provision incorporated by reference into an application to become an allied member of a stock exchange, is enforceable where there has been no fraud in the inducement, is so clearly established that no further discussion other than that set out above is necessary. Plaintiff, an experienced businessman, having admittedly signed not one but two applications with the NASD is presumed to have read and understood the obligation he undertook, (citations omitted).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It would seem strange indeed that with such a significant integrated method of dispute settlement one party could frustrate the purpose of the Exchange rules and the federal policy favoring arbitration by the mere expediency of resignation from the Exchange.”
    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.