Avery v. Bender’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 2012
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 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 · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Pennoyer v. Neff · John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock · John Roller v. Stephen Holly
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no doubt that due process permits the similar reaching of out of state individuals on an in personam basis, also, where applicable statutes permit and sufficient contacts with the forum jurisdiction exist. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, etc., 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L. Ed. 95 ; Doherty & Co. v. Goodman, 294 U.S. 623, 628 , 55 S.Ct. 553 , 79 L. Ed. 1097 . It is the prerogative of the legislature to decide whether or not it will award this extended jurisdiction to its courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The generally accepted definition of quasi in rem proceedings is that it [sic ] affects only the interest of particular persons in specific property; thus distinguishing it from proceedings in rem which determine interests in specific property as against the whole world.” 124 Vt. at 313 , 204 A.2d at 317 (citing Restatement, Judgments § 32, comment a (1942)). The definitions of the terms vary with the source, however. A leading treatise notes:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Upon [notice of proceedings against him] at least twenty-one days before the time when he is required to appear, the same proceedings may be had, so far as to affect the title or right to the possession of goods, chattels, rights, credits, land, tenements, or hereditaments in the state, as if such process or pleading had been served on a party in the state before entry.”
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.