Snyder v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
736 F.2d 409 · 1984
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 17 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014 · most notably Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (1990), Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson (1995)
40 federal appellate · 17 district · 10 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. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another party to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under Title 28, in a civil action or in admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement. ... The court shall hear the parties, and upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The hearing and proceedings, under such agreement, shall be within the district in which the petition for an order directing such arbitration is filed.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(a) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of such acts: (2) The commission of a tortious act within this State; ... (c) Only causes of action arising from acts enumerated herein may be asserted against a defendant in an action in which jurisdiction over him or her is based upon this Section.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In [Firestone], the court of appeals held that an order denying a motion to disqualify counsel was not appealable prior to final judgment but, because its holding was contrary to precedent, it determined the merits of the order. The Supreme Court held that when an appellate court finds an order interlocutory and nonappealable, the court must dismiss the appeal. The Court did not address the issue of whether an appellate court must dismiss the appeal where a party who relies on a jurisdictional ruling is, under a subsequent decision, foreclosed from ever raising his issues in the appellate court. Thus, Firestone does not require this court to dismiss the appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Felzen v. Andreas · Holt v. Shalala
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.