197 F. Supp. 2d 964 - Hunter v. Mendoza’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Scheuer v. Rhodes · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Transacting any business in this state; (2) Contracting to supply services or goods in this state; (3) Causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this state; (4) Causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this state ...; (5) Causing injury in this state to any person by breach of warranty ...; (6) Causing tortious injury in this state to any person by an act outside this state committed with the purpose of injuring persons ...; (7) Causing tortious injury to any person by a criminal act ...; (8) Having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in this state; (9) Contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this state ....”
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.