Echeverry v. Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co.’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.2d 900 · 1949
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably Blount v. Peerless Chemicals (P.R.) Inc. (1963), Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Automobile Body Research Corp. (1965)
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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 Cannon Mfg Co v. Cudahy Packing Co · Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. · United States v. Scophony Corp. of America · Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. McKibbin · People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defendant wanted to have ' business- transactions with persons resident in North Carolina, but for reasons satisfactory to itself did not choose to enter the state in its corporate capacity. It might have conducted such business through an independent agency without subjecting itself to the jurisdiction. Bank of America v. Whitney Central National Bank, 261 U.S. 171 , 43 S.Ct. 811 , 67 L.Ed. 594 . It preférred to employ a subsidiary corporation. Congress has not provided that a corporation of one state shall be amenable to suit in the federal court for another state in which the plaintiff resides, whenever it employs a subsidiary corporation as the instrumentality for doing business therein. Compare Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., 261 U.S. 174, 177-178 , 43 S.Ct. 312 , 67 L.Ed. 596 . That such use of a subsidiary does not necessarily subject the parent corporation to the jurisdiction was settled by Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U.S. 406, 409-411 , 23 S.Ct. 728 , 47 L.Ed. 1113 ; Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 364 , 27 S.Ct. 513 , 51 L.Ed. 841 ; and People’s Tobacco Co., Ltd. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 87 , 38 S.Ct. 233 , 62 L.Ed. 587 . In the case at bar, the identity of interest may have been more complete and the exercise of control over the subsidiary more intimate than in the three cases cited, but that fact has, in the absence of an applicable statute, no legal significance. The corporate separation, though perhaps m”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The published decisions on what constitutes ‘doing business’ in a State by a foreign corporation are literally legion. Yet, in spite of this vast array of judicial authority, border-line cases still have to be decided each on its own peculiar set of facts, which too often cannot be fitted into a stereotyped pattern. In this field, realism, not formalism, should be dominant; the problem must be solved in the light of commercial actuality, not in the aura of juristic semantics. In United States v. Scophony Corporation, 333 U.S. 795, 810 , 68 S.Ct. 855, 863 , 92 L.Ed. 1091 , Mr. Justice Rutledge spoke of ‘the practical, nontechnical, business standard.’ ””
2 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.