Kramer v. Vogl’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions

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 214 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The issue boils down to whether the phrase “transacts any business within the state” covers the situation of a nonresident who never comes into New York State but who sells and sends goods into the State pursuant to an order sent from within the State. We do not have here * * * a nonresident defendant who has one or more local salesmen in this State or who solicits business in this State by means of catalogue, advertisements, or other promotional material circulated New York representative provides services beyond “mere solicitation” and here. All we know is that these defendants in Austria made arrangements to sell merchandise f.o.b. to the local distributor. Defendants themselves carried on no sales, promotion, or advertising activities in this State. * * * Despite the comparative liberality with which we have construed the first paragraph of subdivision (a) of 302 we do not think that the facts displayed here show the case within that paragraph. The cause of action here sued upon cannot be said to have arisen out of any transaction of business in the State. [that] these services are sufficiently important to the foreign corporation [so] that if it did not have a representative to perform them, the corporation’s own officials would undertake to perform substantially similar services.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Aquascutum of London, Inc. v. S/S American Champion · Liquid Carriers Corp. v. American Marine Corp.

2. ““A difficulty [with plaintiff’s contention as to the last act of the alleged tort being sufficient as a basis for jurisdiction] is, however, that in Feathers v. McLucas and Singer v. Walker, 15 N.Y.2d 443 , 261 N.Y.S.2d 8 , 209 N.E.2d 68 , we have given restrictive meaning to the requirement that there be a showing of a tortious act committed in this State and have made it clear that the statutory phrase is not synonymous with ‘commits a tortious act without the state which causes injury within the state’ (supra, p. 460, 261 N.Y.S.2d p. 21, 209 N.E.2d p. 77). The plain meaning of the Feathers and Singer decisions (supra) is that jurisdiction under 302 (subd. [a], par. 2) requires that a defendant’s act of omission occur within the State. Here, in common sense and reality, everything defendants Vogl did was done in Europe.” Id., 17 N.Y.2d at 31 , 267 N.Y.S.2d at 903 , 215 N.E.2d at 161 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. RFD Group Limited v. Rubber Fabricators, Inc.