Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain United Kingdom Defense Procurement Office Ministry of Defense v. Boeing Company’s Empirical Analysis
998 F.2d 68 · 1993
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. (2010), Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (2004)
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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 Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Carnegie v. United States · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd · Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“cannot consolidate arbitration proceedings arising from separate agreements to arbitrate, absent the parties' agreement to allow such consolidation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The legislative history of the [FAA] establishes that the purpose behind its passage was to ensure judicial enforcement of privately made agreements to arbitrate. We therefore reject the suggestion that the overriding goal of the [FAA] was to promote the expeditious resolution of claims. The [FAA], after all, does not mandate the arbitration of all claims, but merely the enforcement— upon the motion of one of the parties— of privately negotiated arbitration agreements. The House Report accompanying the [FAA] makes clear that its purpose was to place an arbitration agreement “upon the same footing as other contracts, where it belongs,” H.R.Rep. No. 96, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1924), and to overrule the judiciary’s longstanding refusal to enforce agreements to arbitrate. The preeminent concern of Congress in passing the [FAA] was to enforce private agreements into which parties had entered, and that concern requires that we rigorously enforce agreements to arbitrate, even if the result is “piecemeal” 'litigation, at least absent a countervailing policy manifested in another federal statute. 470 U.S. at 219-21 , 105 S.Ct. 1238 (footnote omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]f contracting parties wish to have all disputes that arise from the same factual situation arbitrated in a single proceeding, they can simply provide for consolidated arbitration in the arbitration clauses to which they are a party.”
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.