Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 991 F.2d 42 - Progressive Casualty Insurance v. C.A. Reaseguradora Nacional De Venezuela

Progressive Casualty Insurance v. C.A. Reaseguradora Nacional De Venezuela’s Empirical Analysis

991 F.2d 42 · 1993

Citation profile

157
cited by 157 later decisions
7
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 17 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably North River Insurance v. Cigna Reinsurance Co. (1995), Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Emily Distajo (1997)

36 federal appellate · 17 district · 11 state decisions

720199320002010decided

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 Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.

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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[a] court may not . . . construe [an arbitration] agreement in a manner different from that in which it otherwise construes nonarbitration agreements under state law”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[New York] law provides that parties will not be held to have chosen arbitration “in the absence of an express, unequivocal agreement to that effect.” Marlene Indus. Corp. v. Carnac Textiles, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 327 [ 408 N.Y.S.2d 410 , 380 N.E.2d 239 ].... However, New York law requires that nonarbitration agreements be proven only by a mere preponderance of the evidence. Because Perry prohibits such discriminatory treatment of arbitration agreements, the rule set forth in Marlene Industries is preempted. Accordingly, in determining whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate, we apply the ordinary preponderance of the evidence standard.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n determining the arbitrability of a particular dispute, a court must decide 'whether the parties agreed to arbitrate, and, if so, whether the scope of that agreement encompasses the asserted claims.'”
    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.