Noohi v. Toll Bros.’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.3d 599 · 2013
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · Hines v. Davidowitz · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a basic sense, the Cheek rule does single out an arbitration provision in a larger contract, and assess whether that ' provision binds both parties to arbitrate at least some claims. But on closer inspection, we are persuaded that all Cheek does is treat an arbitration provision like any stand-alone contract, requiring consideration. Lack of considerations is clearly a generally applicable contract defense. The Cheek rule does not bar the arbitration of entire categories of claims. Nor does it ignore an arbitration provision to gauge the enforceability of a different provision within the same contract. Moreover, we are not persuaded that Cheek disfavors arbitration; Cheek can just as readily be viewed as encouraging arbitration by requiring that both parties to an arbitration agreement bind themselves to arbitrate at least some categories of claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) submit all disputes against [the defendants] to binding arbitration, (2) notify Defendants of each claim before they initiate arbitration proceedings, (3) give Defendants a reasonable opportunity to cure the default, and (4) waive the right to proceed in a court of law.... Conversely, Defendants do not make any promises to Plaintiffs in this provision. The clause does not state ... “the parties” and thus does not impose any obligations on the Defendants. It only refers to [the plaintiffs] and their obligations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“At the same time, we give due regard to the federal policy favoring arbitration and resolve 'any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues ... in favor of arbitration.'”
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.