Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Insurance v. Norad Reinsurance Co.’s Empirical Analysis
868 F.2d 52 · 1989
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc. (1994), Remmey v. Painewebber, Inc. (1994)
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 13 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 9
Relies on Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · Adams v. Gould Inc. · Gould, Inc., Et Al. v. Adams Et Al. · Piggly Wiggly Operators' Warehouse, Inc. v. Piggly Wiggly Operators' Warehouse Independent Truck Drivers Union, Local No. 1 · Federal Kemper Insurance v. Rauscher
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means. (2) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators.... (3) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. (4) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is ... well established that the “court’s function in confirming or vacating a commercial [arbitration] award is severely limited.” In conducting our review we must examine both the form of relief awarded by the arbitrator as well as the terms of that relief. We must determine if the form of the arbitrators’ award can be rationally derived either from the agreement between the parties or from the parties submissions [sic] to the arbitrators. In addition, the terms of the arbitral award will not be subject to judicial revision unless they are “completely irrational."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is not this Court's role . . . to sit as the [arbitration] panel did and reexamine the evidence under the guise of determining whether the arbitrators exceeded their powers.”
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.