ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
126 F.3d 617 · 1997
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 38 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 248 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc. (2002), United States of America v. Swiss American Bank Ltd Swiss American National Bank Inter-Maritime Bank Geneva (2001)
43 federal appellate · 38 district · 8 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1335 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla
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 248 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nder current Supreme Court jurisprudence, despite advances in technology, State judicial power over persons appears to be limited to persons within the State's boundaries and to those persons outside of the State who have minimum contacts with the State such that the State's exercise of judicial power over the person would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen a federal statute authorizes a federal district court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant beyond the borders of the district and the defendant is effectively brought before the court, we can find little reason not to authorize the court to adjudicate a state claim properly within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction so long as the facts of the federal and state claims arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]lthough the place that the plaintiff feels the alleged injury is plainly relevant to the [jurisdictional] inquiry, it must ultimately be accompanied by the defendant's own [sufficient minimum] contacts with the state if jurisdiction ... is to be upheld.”
5 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.