Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 226 F.3d 88 - Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.’s Empirical Analysis

226 F.3d 88 · 2000

Citation profile

260
cited by 260 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 260 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp. (2001), Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2013)

48 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

1680200020102020decided

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 Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Hanson v. Denckla · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Bell v. Hood

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

  1. “Under well-established New York law, a court of New York may assert jurisdiction over a foreign corporation when it affiliates itself with a New York representative entity and that New York representative renders services on behalf of the foreign corporation that go beyond mere solicitation and are sufficiently important to the foreign entity that the corporation itself would perform equivalent services if no agent were available.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[A] corporation is “doing business” and is therefore “present” in New York and subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to any cause of action, related or unrelated to the New York contacts, if it does business in New York “not occasionally or casually, but with a fair measure of permanence and continuity.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “what degree of deference should the district court accord to a United States plaintiff's choice of a United States forum where that forum is different from the one in which the plaintiff resides.”
    3 later decisions 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.