140 Ga. App. 44 - Value Engineering Co. v. Gisell’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably 682 F. Supp. 706 - O'NEIL v. Picillo (1988), Clarkson Power Flow, Inc. v. Thompson (1979)
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 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 138 Ga. App. 399 - Shellenberger v. Tanner · Coe & Payne Co. v. Wood-Mosaic Corp. · North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc. · J. C. Penney Co. v. Malouf Co.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The nonresident has purposefully done some act or consummated some transaction with or in the forum (but the actual act or omission resulting in the injury here need not have occurred in this state.) The defendant need not be physically within the forum when this act or transaction occurs and a single such instance may suffice; (2) The Georgia plaintiff must have a legal cause of action in tort against the nonresident, which arises out of, or results from, the purposeful activity of the defendant involving this state; a resident is the victim of a “tortious act” when he suffers an injury here due to an act or omission of negligence occurring outside this state; and (3)If the requirements of (1) and (2) are satisfied, the exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresident must be “reasonable.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he General Assembly adopted subsection (c) ... not to restrict the applicability of subsection (b) but rather to liberalize the interpretation that this court had made of ‘tortious act or omission within this State.’ Since the adoption of subsection (c) the Supreme Court has reversed this court’s previously limited interpretation of subsection (b) and extended the exercise of jurisdiction over nonresident parties ‘to the maximum extent permitted by procedural due process.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`[W]ithin the bounds of fairness and substantial justice to the defendant, the Long Arm Statute will be applied to the limits of due process so that those who invoke the protection or benefits of the laws of Georgia, or who injure citizens or property here, will be made to answer therefor in the Georgia courts.'”
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.