107 N.C. App. 703 - Tutterrow v. Leach’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2011
20 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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. · Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A court of this State having jurisdiction of the subject matter has jurisdiction over a person . . . under any of the following circumstances: (1) Local Presence or Status. —In any action, whether the claim arises within or without this State, in which a claim is asserted against a party who when service of process is made upon such party . . . d. Is engaged in substantial activity within this State, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Our courts have developed a list of factors helpful to determining the existence of minimum contacts. Such factors include, (1) the quantity of the contacts, (2) nature and quality of the contacts, (3) the source and connection of the cause of action to the contacts, (4) the interest of the forum state, and (5) convenience of the parties. . . . The Court must also weigh and consider the interests of and fairness to the parties involved in the litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that the contract was entered into outside of North Carolina; that the contract [was] governed by the law of another state; that there [was] no provision in the contract requiring [the] defendant to perform services within North Carolina; that [the] defendant [had] performed all services under the contract outside of North Carolina; and that for the life of the contract [the] defendant [had] not been in [North Carolina] for any purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.