Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 201 F.2d 233 - Mississippi Wood Preserving Co. v. Rothschild

Mississippi Wood Preserving Co. v. Rothschild’s Empirical Analysis

201 F.2d 233 · 1953

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Edwin A. Walker v. Van H. Savell and the Associated Press (1964), Stanga v. McCormick Shipping Corp. (1959)

25 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

2101953196019701980199020002010decided

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 · Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Travelers Health Ass'n v. Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission · Hess v. Pawloski

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

  1. ““Giving full effect to these significant passages and noting the recurrence in them of, and' the emphasis upon, continuity, series, succession, congeries, as contrasted with occasional, single, sporadic, episodic, it is quite clear that while a literal reading of the statute would bring the defendants within its terms since they did do an act in the state and the cause of action sued on grew out of it, it is equally clear that the Supreme Court in the Davis case-has-not so construed the statute.On the contrary, it has made it plain that it does not construe it literally and’ as conferring jurisdiction on ¿single act or acts, but construes- it as requiring a series of acts amounting to a continuity before it can beheld under the statute, that there is a doing of business in the state.” '”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.