982 F. Supp. 609 - Cecala v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 district · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Southland Corp. v. Keating · 119 Ill. App. 3d 663 - J&K Cement Construction, Inc. v. Montalbano Builders, Inc. · Snyder v. Smith · Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Mathews v. Fluor Corp., 312 S.C. 404 , 440 S.E.2d 880, 881 (1994), the purchasers of real estate alleged that the sellers had fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the property. The sellers moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. The property at issue was in South Carolina, the seller was a California entity and the buyer was a Pennsylvania partnership. In addition, transactions incident to the sale took place in jurisdictions outside South Carolina. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the contract “did not involve interstate commerce as defined in the Federal Arbitration Act,” and that it was therefore outside the scope of the FAA. Id. at 881-82.”
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.