Nordin v. Nutri/System, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
897 F.2d 339 · 1990
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Co. (2000), John Morrell Company v. Local Union 304a of United Food and Commercial Workers (1990)
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 9 U.S.C. § 9
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Carson v. American Brands, Inc.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A straight-forward reading of this provision reveals that the permissive “may” does not refer, as Tesoro argues, to which court is authorized to vacate an arbitration award, but to the permissive nature of the relief that the district court is empowered to grant. Likewise, the statutory language concerning which district court may vacate an arbitration award is clear and unambiguous and refers only to “the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made____” Therefore, the Court finds that 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a) mandates that the only proper federal court in which an action to vacate an arbitration award may be filed is the court in and for the district wherein the award was made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Orders denying arbitration do have an injunctive effect and have serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence. The order is injunctive because it enjoins proceedings in another tribunal. It has serious consequences because of the irreparable harm that exists when arbitration is denied ab initio. If a party must undergo the expense and delay of trial before being able to appeal, the advantages of arbitration—speed and economy—are lost forever.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“involves consideration of (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.”
1 later decision 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.