National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.2d 756 · 1988
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 30 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED v. Willard S. HARTMANN, Leona R. Hartmann, Appellants (1990), Three Valleys Municipal Water District v. E.F. Hutton & Co. (1991)
25 federal appellate · 30 district · 12 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 United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers · Par-Knit Mills, Inc. v. Stockbridge Fabrics Co. · Rochdale Village, Inc. v. Public Service Employees Union, Local No. 80 · Necchi S.P.A. v. Necchi Sewing Machine Sales Corp.
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]ven in cases involving very broad arbitration clauses, the presumption in favor of arbitrating disputes over contract duration can be overcome by a clear showing that the parties intended for the underlying contract to expire, or separately agreed to terminate it, before the relevant dispute arose. For exam- pie, if a contract provides that “all disputes between the parties shall be arbitrated,” but with equal clarity provides that it will expire on a date certain, then any dispute over whether the contract actually expired or was extended by the parties must be decided by the court rather than by the arbitrator.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f we allow the federal policy favoring arbitration, with its accompanying presumption of arbitrability, to override the will of the parties by giving the arbitration clause greater coverage than the parties intended, then in the longer run we risk undermining rather than serving that policy. In cases such as this one, for example, private parties may be reluctant to agree to arbitration if they believe that, despite their best efforts to express their wishes to the contrary, any slight ambiguity in their words or deeds can be seized upon to extend their obligation to arbitrate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he parties have it within their power to specify the date and hour at which their obligation to arbitrate is to end, or to specify a clear condition subsequent, such as sending of notice, giving any party the right to terminate that obligation. Where they have done so, there is nothing fairly arguable to refer to 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.