Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP’s Empirical Analysis
734 F.3d 871 · 2013
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · At&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion · AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion · Amgen Inc. v. New York · American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Without deciding the issue, we also note that the two courts of appeals, and the overwhelming majority of the district courts, to have considered the issue have determined that they should not defer to the NLRB’s decision in D.R. Horton on the ground that it conflicts with the explicit pronouncements of the Supreme Court concerning the policies undergird-ing the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bekele v. Lyft, Inc.
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.