Trott v. Paciolla’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 9 U.S.C. § 3 · 9 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mr. Paciolla was an employee of Merrill Lynch. An entity such as Merrill Lynch can only act through its employees, and an arbitration agreement would be of little value if it did not extend to [them].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“broad sweeping terms [that] clearly encompass claims related to the [customer at issue]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ny controversy arising out of or relating to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.