Wright v. Automatic Valve Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The petition sets forth in substantially the statutory language that defendant ‘might reasonably have expected . . . [the plaintiff] to use, consume or be affected by the [defendant’s] goods in this state.’ However, it fails to allege specifically one or more of the three additional grounds, as numbered above, which are also prerequisites to jurisdiction of the defendant authorized by statute. Nor does it set forth allegations sufficient to support a reasonable inference that defendant regularly does or solicits business, or engages in a persistent course of conduct in Ohio, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed in Ohio.” 20 Ohio St. 2d at 88 . (Emphasis in original.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 43 Ohio App. 2d 79 - Jurko v. Jobs Europe Agency

2. ““Plaintiff not having pleaded facts sufficient to meet the statutory requirement to obtain jurisdiction of the defendant, the motion to quash was properly sustained by the lower court. ” 20 Ohio St. 2d at 89 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 43 Ohio App. 2d 79 - Jurko v. Jobs Europe Agency