125 N.C. App. 163 - Saxon v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably 131 N.C. App. 231 - Inspirational Network, Inc. v. Combs (1998), 151 N.C. App. 158 - Wyatt v. Walt Disney World, Co. (2002)
32 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 · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Calder v. Jones · Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. · Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(4) Local Injury; Foreign Act. — In any action . . . claiming injury to person or property within this State arising out of an act or omission outside this State by the defendant, provided in addition that at or about the time of the injury .... a. Solicitation or services activities were carried on within this State by or on behalf of the defendant.... (5) Local Services, Goods or Contracts. — In any action which: a. Arises out of a promise, made anywhere to the plaintiff.. . for the plaintiffs benefit, by the defendant to . . . pay for services to be performed in this State by the plaintiff; or b. Arises out of services ... actually performed for the defendant by the plaintiff within this State if such performance within this State was authorized or ratified by the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[T]he plaintiff[s] [were] the focus of the activities of the defendant out of which the suit arises ... the brunt of the harm, in terms [] of ... the injury to [its marks] was suffered in [North Carolina]. In sum, [North Carolina] is the focal point both of the [infringing information] and of the harm suffered. Jurisdiction over [defendants] is therefore proper in [North Carolina] based on the `effects' of their [California] conduct in [North Carolina]."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”
2 later decisions 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.