Lee v. Chica’s Empirical Analysis
983 F.2d 883 · 1993
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 5 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. (1995), McCarthy v. Azure (1994)
42 federal appellate · 5 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 9
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Southland Corp. v. Keating · Perry v. Thomas · Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the arbitration setting we have almost none of the protections that fundamental fairness and due process require for the imposition of this form of punishment. Discovery is abbreviated if available at all. The rules of evidence are employed, if at all, in a very relaxed manner. The factfinders (here the panel) operate with almost none of the controls and safeguards [present in traditional litigation.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Even if we accepted as valid Chica's argument that under state law the parties did not agree to arbitrate punitive damages because Minnesota law does not allow an awarding of punitive damages, it would not be dispositive in this case. This case is governed by federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he present case is an action seeking to confirm an award already made by an arbitration panel in accordance with a provision in a contract. It is not an issue of validity, revocability or enforceability of the arbitration agreement within the contract.”
2 later decisions 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.