Refining Corporation v. M/t Triumph’s Empirical Analysis
924 F.2d 467 · 1991
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably JLM Industries, Inc. v. Stolt-Nielsen SA (2004), Fahnestock & Co. v. Waltman (1991)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 659 · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 9
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon · Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“— consented to arbitrate this discrete dispute, but, as the litigation progressed, arbitrated more matters than they had anticipated: 49 During the course of the arbitration, Kerr-McGee obtained information, including numerous detailed photographs of the vessel taken while it was being dismantled for scrap metal in China, that showed that a permanent concealed tank had been built into one of the vessels cargo tanks. The vessel had been further modified to allow oil to be transferred from the cargo tank to the concealed tank. In the words of the arbitration panel,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because of the alleged theft of cargo, Kerr-McGee amended its claim in arbitration to recompute its damages and to seek damages under RICO. 50 Id. at 468-69. 51 The arbitration panel issued an award in favor of Kerr-McGee. Pursuant to the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 9, Kerr-McGee then moved in federal district court for confirmation of the panel's award. The district court held that the award was improper”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(emphasis added). The dispute here was directly based on a shortage in the fuel oil delivered at the end of the single voyage covered by the Charter. It is true that Kerr-McGee thereafter obtained evidence that the shortage was intentional and part of a prior practice. This evidence, however, did not alter the facts that the dispute arose”
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.