Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Stuart’s Empirical Analysis
85 F.3d 975 · 1996
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. (2002), Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Emily Distajo (1997)
36 federal appellate · 8 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
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon · United States v. Alaska · Jizmejian 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the burden of showing that he is entitled to a jury trial under § 4 of the [FAA].'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'an unequivocal denial that the agreement [to arbitrate] had been made [is] needed, and some evidence should [be] produced to substantiate the denial.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract or the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association at a hearing to be held in Bridgeport, Connecticut, or whichever city in which the Company is then headquartered[.]'”
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.