Ex Parte Napier’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably TranSouth Financial Corp. v. Bell (1999), 753 So. 2d 497 - Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Vintson (1999)
68 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 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto · Lee v. Brown · United States v. Alpert · McBro Planning and Development Company v. Triangle Electrical Construction Company 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[a]ll disputes, claims or controversies arising from or relating to this Contract or the relationships which result from this Contract ... shall be resolved by binding arbitration.' " The Napier Court concluded that this language was "broad enough to encompass Napier and Godfrey's claims against [nonsignatories] Foremost and Manning.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“A petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper means by which to challenge a trial court's order granting a motion to compel arbitration.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“a refusal of [their] request for assistance after [they] had notified someone that [they were] unable to see or to understand; [their] inability to obtain the product made the basis of this action from this seller, or from another source, without having to sign an arbitration clause; the oppressiveness or unfairness of the mechanism of arbitration; or the fairness of a discount or other quid pro quo in exchange for [their] accepting an arbitration agreement.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.