Jupiter Aluminum Corporation v. Home Insurance Company Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis
225 F.3d 868 · 2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · 166 Ill. 2d 520 - Lapham-Hickey Steel Corp. v. Protection Mutual Insurance · Michas v. Health Cost Controls of Illinois, Inc. · Brasic v. Heinemann's 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“location of the subject matter, the place of delivery of the contract, the domicile of the insured or of the insurer, the place of the last act to give rise to a valid contract, the place of performance, or other place bearing a rational relationship to the general contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the contacts relevant to the choice-of-law decision include `the place of contracting, negotiation, performance, location of the subject matter of the contract, and the domicil[e], residen[ce], place of incorporation, and business of the parties.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Illinois courts employ a 'most significant contacts' test to determine the governing substantive law for the contract.”
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.