Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 779 F.2d 885 - Rush III v. Oppenheimer & Co

Rush III v. Oppenheimer & Co’s Empirical Analysis

779 F.2d 885 · 1985

Citation profile

188
cited by 188 later decisions
13
states following
January 2020
most recently cited

66 federal appellate · 15 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 188 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Wagoner (1991), 31 Cal. 4th 1187 - Saint Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California (2003)

66 federal appellate · 15 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 13 states

74019851990200020102020decided

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 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 4

Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd · Wilko v. Swan · 103 S. Ct. 247 - Beneficial Finance of Kansas, Inc. 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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he Arbitration Act establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]aiver of the right to compel arbitration due to participation in litigation may be found only when prejudice to the other party is demonstrated.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Absent a demonstration of prejudice by [the defendant], the bare fact that the defendants filed an answer is inadequate by itself to support a claim of waiver of arbitration.”
    3 later decisions 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.