Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 712 F.2d 50 - Rhone Mediterranee Compagnia Francese Di Assicurazioni E Riassicurazoni v. Lauro

Rhone Mediterranee Compagnia Francese Di Assicurazioni E Riassicurazoni v. Lauro’s Empirical Analysis

712 F.2d 50 · 1983

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
July 2018
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Riley v. Kingsley Underwriting Agencies, Ltd. (1992), Sedco, Inc. v. Petroleos Mexicanos Mexican National Oil Co. (1985)

24 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1701983199020002010decided

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 Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. · Enelow v. New York Life Insurance · Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg American Line · Dominick Carcich v. Rederi A/b Nordie, and Third-Party v. Cunard Steamship Company, Ltd., Third-Party Luis Calderon v. Den Norske Syd Amerika and Bergen Steamship Company, Det. Bergenske Dampskibsselskab and Den Norske Syd Amerika Linje, Third-Party v. The Cunard Steamship Company, Ltd., Third-Party

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

  1. “signatory nations have effectively declared a joint policy that presumes the enforceability of agreements to arbitrate. Neither the parochial interests of the forum state, nor those of states having more significant relationships with the dispute, should be permitted to supersede that presumption. The policy of the Convention is best served by an approach which leads to upholding agreements to arbitrate.” Id. at 54 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the court enforced the arbitration agreement. 19 . Even Justice Stevens, whose dissenting opinion in Mitsubishi argued unsuccessfully for”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[а]n action or proceeding falling under the Convention shall be deemed to arise under the laws and treaties of the United States.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The United States Courts certainly recognize international arbitration agreements. Our nation, like the United Kingdom, Germany and scores of other countries, has adopted the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“The New York Convention”), June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, T.I.A.S. No. 6997, reprinted in 9 U.S.C. § 201 note. The Federal Arbitration Act implements the United States’ accession to the Convention, see 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-08 , and provides that it “shall be enforced in United States courts . ...” Id. § 201”
    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.