Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 188 F.3d 619 - Charles Guidry

Charles Guidry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
6
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

2 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably 241 F. Supp. 2d 281 - In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (2003), Alpine View Company Limited

2 district · 12 state decisions

530200020102020decided

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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.

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

  1. ““When a nonresident defendant commits a tort within the state, or an act outside the state that causes tortious injury within the state, that tortious conduct amounts to sufficient minimum contacts with the state by the defendant to constitutionally permit courts within that state, including federal courts, to exercise personal adjudicative jurisdiction over the tortfeasor and the causes of actions arising from its offenses or quasi-offenses.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “ICC Rules of Arbitration, art. 21 § 1. This is the first instance where Defendant reserved his right to arbitration. It came nearly five months into the case and after Defendant twice filed his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim, neither of which referenced or reserved his right to arbitration. Having asserted that the arbitration tribunal would err if it concluded that the claims in this case are subject to arbitration, Defendant now argues in the instant Motion that he has a”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The analysis of specific jurisdiction may be refined ... into a three-part test: (1) Did the defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state — purposely directing its activities toward the forum state or purposely availing itself of the privilege of conducting activities therein? (2) Did the plaintiffs [sic] cause of action arise out of or result from the defendant’s forum-related contacts? (3) Would the exercise of personal jurisdiction be reasonable and fair? 4 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1069, at 174 (Supp.1999) (citing authorities).”
    1 later decision 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.