Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 669 F.3d 350 - Khan v. Dell Inc.

Khan v. Dell Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

669 F.3d 350 · 2012

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
6
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 9 U.S.C. § 5

Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph · Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. · Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.

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

  1. “if for any other reason there shall be a lapse in the naming of an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire...then upon the application of either party to the controversy the court shall designate and appoint an arbitrator”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “any claim, dispute, or controversy ... shall be resolved exclusively and finally by binding arbitration administered by [NAF] under its Code of Procedure then in effect”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “as important a consideration as the agreement to arbitrate itself' (citation omitted)). ¶ 19. Under the integral-versus-ancillary test, a court must decline to appoint a substitute arbitrator if the parties' choice of arbitrator is " 'so central to the arbitration agreement that the unavailability of that arbitrator [brings] the agreement to an end.'”
    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.