Nahigian v. Leonard’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
10 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co. · Oneida Indian Nation of New York State v. County of Oneida New York
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“several major circuit courts and the District of Massachusetts, primarily on grounds of efficiency, have interpreted Rule 4(k) to allow nationwide service of process to be effective for state law claims alleged by the plaintiff that arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the plaintiffs federal claims that benefit from nationwide service. This doctrine is termed “pendent personal jurisdiction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In Nahigian , the Court ultimately held that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants with respect to the state claim as well as the federal claim because”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the state claim appears to arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the [federal] claims.”
1 later decision 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.