Auction Effertz, Ltd. v. Schecher’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
4 district · 11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Milliken v. Meyer · CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson · Cook v. Berlin Woolen Mill Co. · Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co. v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) Personal jurisdiction based upon contacts. A court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent as to any claim for relief arising from the person’s having such contact with this state that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the person does not offend against traditional notions of justice or fair play or the due process of law, under one or more of the following circumstances: (A) transacting any business in this state; [[Image here]] (H) enjoying any other legal status or capacity within this state;”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bolinske v. Herd · Hansen v. Scott““A court has personal jurisdiction over a person if the person has reasonable notice that an action has been brought and sufficient connection with the forum state to make it fair to require defense of the action in the state.” In determining personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, a court must first decide whether the forum state’s long-arm provision confers jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant, and, if it does, the court must decide whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident comports with due process. To satisfy due process concerns, the nonresident defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with North Dakota so the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bolinske v. Herd
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.