Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Tanner’s Empirical Analysis
72 F.3d 234 · 1995
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 13 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co. (2001), Montes v. Shearson Lehman Bros. (1997)
14 federal appellate · 13 district · 8 state decisions
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78Q (§ 17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 12 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) unfounded in reason and fact; (2) based on reasoning so palpably faulty that no judge, or group of judges, ever could conceivably have made such a ruling; or (3) mistakenly based on a crucial assumption that is concededly a non-fact.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n order to prevail, Advest by its own admission must prove that the arbitrators’ choice of redress was in manifest disregard of the law. The hurdle is -a high one, especially since there is nothing talismanic about the phrase “manifest disregard.” The configuration merely means that, to vacate an arbitration award, there must be some showing in the record, other than the result obtained, that the arbitrators knew the law and expressly disregarded it... As arbitrators need not explain their award, and did not do so here, it is no wonder that appellant is hard pressed to satisfy the exacting criteria for invocation of the doctrine.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Courts thus do not sit to hear claims of factual or legal error by an arbitrator as an appellate court does in reviewing decisions of lower courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.