Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 895 FSUPP 392 - Washburn v. McManus

Washburn v. McManus’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 2015

3 state decisions

20199420002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act)

Relies on Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. · Small v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Tocco v. United States · Dallas County Commissioners Court v. Richardson · Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he mere fact of a prior relationship is not in and of itself sufficient to disqualify arbitrators. The relationship between the arbitrator and the party’s principal must be so intimate—personally, socially, professionally, or financially—as to cast serious doubt on the arbitrator’s impartiality. If all arbitrators’ relationships came into question, finding qualified arbitrators would be a difficult, sometimes impossible, task.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “must establish specific facts that indicate improper motives on the part of the arbitrator.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “standard, that appearance must be reasonable;”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.