Painewebber Incorporated v. H. William Hofmann’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 10 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Painewebber Inc. v. Elahi (1996), Ajamian v. Cantorco2e. L.P. (2012)
13 federal appellate · 10 district · 10 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
Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers · John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston · Schoch v. First Fidelity Bancorporation · PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED v. Willard S. HARTMANN, Leona R. Hartmann, Appellants
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]o dispute, claim or controversy shall be eligible for submission to arbitration under this Code where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the act or dispute, claim or controversy.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he court should, as a benchmark, generally accept a party’s statement as to what constitutes a cause of action and permit the arbitration of that claim as long as the asserted cause of action is not clearly a mere tolling or discovery argument. However, when the stated cause of action is patently nothing more than an attempt to toll the six year period, the court must enjoin the arbitration of that claim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [T]he first step will be to determine whether the parties intended to submit disputes over the operative occurrence or event, and/or when it occurred, to arbitration. In resolving this question, the court should look to the language of the contract and all relevant extrinsic evidence____ In particular, the court may be aided by evidence of the customs and practices in the industry____ If the parties intended to submit disputes over what is the relevant occurrence or event, and/or when it occurred, to arbitration, ‘the narrow question of [what constitutes the relevant occurrence or event] should be sent to an arbitrator for initial determination’ ... If the arbitrators determine that the occurrence or event that gave rise to the particular claim occurred more than six years before the filing of arbitration, their inquiry as to that claim is at an end. because they have no jurisdiction to consider it on the merits. If, on the other hand, the arbitrators determine that the occurrence or event was within six years of Hofmann’s arbitration demand, the arbitrators should go on to rule on the merits of the claim. If, in contrast, the district court determines that the parties did not intend to submit disputes over the relevant occurrence or event to arbitration, the court will have to determine what was the relevant occurrence or event and when it occurred. In resolving that issue, the court must again take care ‘not to rule on the potential merits of the underlying claims,’ as ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.