United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2002
2 district · 20 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2202 · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 9
Relies on Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc. · Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney · Panama Co v. Johnson · Gerry v. United States
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Subject matter jurisdiction should be determined not with respect to individual sections of the [Federal Arbitration] Act but with respect to the Act as a whole. See Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U.S. 198, 201 , 76 S.Ct. [273], 275, 100 L.Ed. 199 [1956]; Robert Lawrence Co. [ v. Devonshire Fabrics, Inc., 271 F.2d 402 (2d Cir.1959), cert. dismissed, 364 U.S. 801 , 81 S.Ct. 27 , 5 L.Ed.2d 37 (1960)]. In discussing this issue, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated: The Arbitration Act was enacted as a single comprehensive statutory scheme. To engage in the reasoning the plaintiff suggests [that Section 2 may be construed to be independent of Section 4] would in effect repeal Section 4 of the Act. Commercial Metals Co. v. Balfour, Guthrie & Co. [ 577 F.2d 264, 268-69 (5th Cir.1978)] (citations omitted). ... . A congressional intent to establish exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts is not to be lightly inferred. [ Charles] Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502 , 82 S.Ct. 519 , 7 L.Ed.2d 483 (1962). Jurisdiction in the state court must be affirmed "where it is not excluded by express provision, or by incompatibility in its exercise arising from the nature of the particular case." Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. [(3 Otto)] 130, 136, 23 L.Ed. 833 (1876). Considering Section 10 in light of Hoiness v. United States [ 335 U.S. 297, 301-02 , 69 S.Ct. 70, 72 , 93 L.Ed. 16 (1948)], and Bainbridge v. Merchants & Miners [Transportation] Co. [ 287 U.S. 278, 280 , 53 S.Ct”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A congressional intent to establish exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts is not to be lightly inferred. Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502 , 82 S.Ct. 519 , 7 L.Ed.2d 483 (1962). Jurisdiction in the state court must be affirmed “where it is not excluded by express provision, or by incompatibility in its exercise arising from the nature of the particular case.” Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136 , 23 L.Ed. 833 (1876).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hook v. Hook
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.