Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 N.C. App. 139 - Replacements, Ltd. v. Midwesterling

133 N.C. App. 139 - Replacements, Ltd. v. Midwesterling’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

69 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Hanson v. Denckla · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he determination of whether jurisdiction is statutorily and constitutionally permissible due to contact with the forum is a question of fact. The standard of [appellate] review of an order determining personal jurisdiction is whether the findings of fact by the trial court are supported by competent evidence in the record; if so, this Court must affirm the order of the trial court.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In cases which arise from or are related to defendant’s contacts with the forum, a court is said to exercise specific jurisdiction over the defendant. However, in cases . . . where defendant’s contacts with the state are not related to the suit, an application of the doctrine of general jurisdiction is appropriate. Under this doctrine, jurisdiction may be asserted even if the cause of action is unrelated to defendant’s activities in the forum as long as there are sufficient continuous and systematic contacts between defendant and the forum state.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “When personal jurisdiction is alleged to exist pursuant to the long-arm statute, the question of statutory authority collapses into one inquiry - whether the defendant has the minimum contacts with North Carolina necessary to meet the requirements of due process. In order to satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause, the pivotal inquiry is whether the defendant has established certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
    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.