Zisman v. Sieger’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2007
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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 Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation · Rauch v. Day & Night Manufacturing Corp. · 33 Cal. App. 3d 808 - Shoei Kako Co. v. Superior Court · Morse v. Elmira Country Club · Tamari v. Bache & 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Finally, Fujitsu, Ltd. has also waived its objection to the sufficiency of service of process based on Rule 4(j).... It is true that on its own initiative the Court could have dismissed the action as to Fujitsu, Ltd. without prejudice. We did in fact dismiss the action as to Fujitsu, Ltd. on December 21, 1984, though on other grounds. The effect of that dismissal is the same as a dismissal under 4(j), without prejudice. We did grant leave for [the third-party plaintiff] to attempt to serve Fujitsu again, if not barred by the statute of limitations or other law. That is essentially the effect of a 4(j) dismissal without prejudice. In neither case would the date of service relate back to the original date the ... complaint was filed, rather it would run from the date the process was actually served, after the dismissal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to create appropriate means to ensure that judicial . . . documents to be served abroad shall be brought to the notice of the addressee in sufficient time. . . .”
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.