Mitchell v. Dougherty’s Empirical Analysis
90 F. 639 · 1898
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1946
4 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Insurance Company v. Morse · Guaranty Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Green Cove Springs & Melrose Railroad · Commonwealth v. Scott · The Excelsior · Stephenson v. Piscataqua Fire & Marine Insurance
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Agreements to refer disputes to arbitration present an example of what the common law regarded as attempts to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, and as against public policy. The reason of the rule adopted by the courts is by some traced to the jealousy of the courts and a desire to repress all attempts to encroach on the exclusiveness of their jurisdiction, and by others to an aversion of the courts, from reasons of public poliey, to sanction contracts by which the protection which the law affords the individual citizens is renounced. But, whatever may be the reason, it is a well-settled rule of the common law that a clause in an agreement, or a separate agreement, that any or all disputes which may arise thereunder shall be referred to an arbitrator or arbitrators, is unenforceable as an attempt to oust the courts of jurisdiction, and either party may have recourse to them without carrying out his agreement to refer.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We have not felt called upon to discuss in detail the several Pennsylvania eases which have been urged upon our attention by the learned counsel for the defendant in error. The question before us is not as to the enforcement of the contract in accordance with the law of the place where it was made, but is as to whether a court of the United States should, because of the parties’ agreement in advance to abstain from invoking its jurisdiction, refuse to enforce the contract at all. Upon this question the decisions of the supreme court of the United States are controlling, and they admit of but one conclusion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The law and not the contract prescribes the remedy; and parties have no more right to enter into stipulations against a resort to the courts for their remedy, in a given case, than they have to provide a remedy prohibited by law.””
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.