Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 201 F.3d 15 - Autoridad De Energ Electrica De Puerto Rico v. Ericsson Inc

Autoridad De Energ Electrica De Puerto Rico v. Ericsson Inc’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 20 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Triple Quest, Inc. v. Cleveland Gear Co. (2001), Boland v. George S. May International Co. (2012)

1 federal appellate · 20 district · 3 state decisions

130200020102020decided

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 Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co · Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer · Lambert v. Kysar · Foster v. Chesapeake Insurance · McDermott International, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters of London

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

  1. “Id. (emphasis in original). In other words, a forum-selection clause specifying that the parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of a particular court does no more than signify the parties'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an affirmative conferral of personal jurisdiction by consent, and not a negative exclusion of jurisdiction in other courts.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an obvious interest in cutting off any possible 4 By contrast, in Centro Médico, we found that a forum-selection clause similar to the Ericsson clause was mandatory because it, unlike the Ericsson clause, reflected an agreement by putative plaintiffs to file their complaints in a particular court. - 16 - litigation on personal jurisdiction grounds, even if the issue [i]s unlikely to be raised.”
    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.