Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
724 F.3d 1218 · 2013
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 9 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Association v. D Cuesta · Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc. · Rivers v. Roadway 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) when [Henson] must rely on the terms of the [Customer Agreement] in asserting its claims against [Turn] or the claims are intimately founded in and intertwined with the [Customer Agreement], and (2) when [Henson] alleges substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by [Turn] and [Verizon] and the allegations of interdependent misconduct are founded in or intimately connected with the obligations of the [Customer Agreement].”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Even if Best Buy is correct that Plaintiffs’ [fraud] claims on some abstract level require the existence of the Customer Agreement, the law is clear that this is not enough for equitable estoppel. In California, equitable estoppel is inapplicable where a plaintiffs “allegations reveal no claim of any violation of any duty, obligation, term or condition imposed by the [customer] agreements.” Applying this principle in Kramer , we held that Toyota could not compel arbitration of a consumer class action on the basis of arbitration clauses contained in the Purchase Agreements customers entered into with their dealerships. We expressly rejected Toyota’s argument that the plaintiffs’ claims were necessarily intertwined with the Purchase Agreements merely because the lawsuit was predicated on the bare fact that a vehicle purchase occurred. Rather, we held that the plaintiffs’ causes of action, which, as here, largely arose under California consumer protection law, were not sufficiently intertwined with the Purchase Agreements to trigger equitable estoppel. Likewise, here, the Customer Agreement proves at most the existence of a transaction; Plaintiffs’ claims do not depend on the Agreement’s terms.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims against DirecTV. They did not agree to arbitrate their claims against Best Buy. Notwithstanding the parties’ many imaginative legal arguments, in this case they remain bound by the agreements they made and not by any they did not make.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.