Pearce v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
828 F.2d 826 · 1987
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc. (1994), Britton v. Co-Op Banking Group (1990)
22 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 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 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 292 · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd · Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon · Ross v. Bernhard
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We agree that it would probably be unfair — because beyond the probable contemplation of the parties to the U-4 agreement — to require an associated person to submit literally any dispute arising out of his employment to arbitration, especially claims not deriving in some fashion from the occupational duties as an associated person. If an associated person slips and falls in the member firm's premises, his negligence claim against the firm raises no issues that would not arise if a secretarial or janitorial worker has such a fall; it would be odd, therefore, if the parties intended to require the associated person to submit a dispute over such a mishap to NYSE arbitration, since the employer's membership in the NYSE is a fortuity, no more relevant to the slip-and-fall of an employee who is an associated person than to that of another employee. The phrase 'arising out of my employment' is therefore more sensibly read as 'arising out of my employment as an associated person. ' "”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he rationale for this policy is at its strongest where the arbitration will be governed by procedures specifically tailored to the context from which the agreement to arbitrate arises, and will be conducted by arbitrators who are expert in the norms and practices of the relevant industry. Labor arbitration is one such context. The arbitration system of the New York Stock Exchange is another.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ny controversy between me and any member or member organization or affiliate or subsidiary thereof arising out of my employment or the termination of my employment shall be settled by arbitration at the instance of any such party in accordance with the arbitration procedures prescribed in the Constitution and Rules then obtaining of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.”
2 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.