Am Capen's Co Inc v. American Trading and Production Corporation Blas Rossy-Asencio and Rafaela Fulana De Tal Am Capen's Co Inc’s Empirical Analysis
202 F.3d 469 · 2000
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Nilsa Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial Pr Wireless Corp (2000), United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Flores-Galarza (2003)
14 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
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 Arizona v. California · Messenger v. Anderson · Griggs-Ryan v. Smith · Stepanischen v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Corp. · Morris v. Government Development Bank
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The negotiations' took place in Missouri and New Jersey. Pursuant to the agreement, ATAPCO’s products were shipped to Capen’s in New Jersey. Ca-pen’s would generally take orders from its Puerto Rican customers in New Jersey via telephone or fax, although an agent would actually travel to Puerto Rico two to three times a year for that purpose. Capen’s would then ship the products directly to its customers in Puerto Rico and send bills from New Jersey to Puerto Rico. Capen’s did not advertise in Puerto Rico, nor did it maintain a warehouse, showroom, inventory, employees, office, address, or telephone number in Puerto Rico. Likewise, Capen’s is not qualified to do business in Puerto Rico.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Based on the facts before us, we cannot conclude that Capen’s operates “in Puerto Rico” for purposes of Act 75. Capen’s presence in Puerto Rico is almost nonexistent; Puerto Rico is merely one of the destinations markets for the ATAPCO goods that it distributes. Capen’s has no employees, no office space or warehouses, and no assets in Puerto Rico. Other than the two or three times a year that an agent visits Puerto Rico to take orders directly, all other contact and orders are made through New Jersey, where Capen’s maintains a place of business and is incorporated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico cannot remain indifferent to the growing number of cases in which domestic and foreign enterprises, without just cause, eliminate their dealers ... as soon as these have created a favorable market and without taking into account their, legitimate concerns. The Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico declares that the reasonable stability in the dealer’s relationship in Puerto Rico is vital to the general economy of the country, to the public interest and to the general welfare....”
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.