199 N.C. App. 50 - Brown v. Meter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When evaluating personal jurisdiction, the trial court must engage in a two-step inquiry: first, the trial court must determine whether a basis for jurisdiction exists under the North Carolina long-arm statute, and second, if so, the trial court must determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is consistent with applicable due process standards. When personal jurisdiction is alleged to exist pursuant to the long-arm statute, the question of statutory authority collapses into one inquiry, which is whether defendant has the minimum contacts necessary to meet the requirements of due process. . . . [D]ue process considerations prohibit our state courts from exercising personal jurisdiction unless the defendant has had certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not offended by maintenance of the suit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 206 N.C. App. 93 - Brown v. Ellis

2. “Although a determination of whether the required minimum contacts are present necessarily hinges upon the facts of each case, there are several factors a trial court typically evaluates in determining whether the required level of contacts exists: (1) quantity of the contacts between the defendant and the forum state, (2) quality and nature of the contacts, (3) the source and connection of the cause of action to the contacts, (4) the interest in the forum state, and (5) convenience of the parties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 206 N.C. App. 93 - Brown v. Ellis

3. “In examining the legal sufficiency of the trial court’s order, our review on appeal focuses initially on whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record. If the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, we conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s conclusions of law and determine whether, given the facts found by the trial court, the exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate defendant’s due process rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 206 N.C. App. 93 - Brown v. Ellis