Carmichael v. Snyder’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 2 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably John G. Kolbe, Inc. v. Chromodern Chair Co. (1971), Danville Plywood Corp. v. Plain & Fancy Kitchens, Inc. (1977)
27 federal appellate · 2 district · 34 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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Pennoyer v. Neff · 11 Ill. 2d 378 - Nelson v. Miller · 16 Ill. 2d 426 - Grobark v. Addo MacHine Co., Inc.
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person’s: # * sfc # Having ... (iii) shown by personal conduct in this Commonwealth, as alleged by affidavit, that the person conceived or fathered a child in this Commonwealth[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In fact, all the incidents of a real ownership belong to it [the purchaser].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As has long been settled ... a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum State. . . . The concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant against the burdens of liti gating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system. The protection against inconvenient litigation is typically described in terms of ‘reasonableness’ or ‘fairness.’ We have said that the defendant’s contacts with the forum State must be such that maintenance of the suit ‘does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ . . . The relationship between the defendant and the forum must be such that it is ‘reasonable ... to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is brought there.’ . . . Implicit in this emphasis on reasonableness is the understanding that the burden on the defendant, while always a primary concern, will in an appropriate case be considered in light of other relevant factors, including the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute . . . .””
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.