234 Pa. Super. 492 - Stepnowski v. Avery’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 1992 · most notably Kubik v. Letteri (1992), 236 Pa. Super. 447 - Action Industries, Inc. v. Wiedeman (1975)
1 federal appellate · 16 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 · Hanson v. Denckla · Cree v. Goldstein · 228 Pa. Super. 12 - Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Cleveland Lumber Co. · Commonwealth v. Rieck Investment Corp.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the due process clause requires that certain minimum contacts with the forum state be met so that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice . . . [I]n determining whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable, it is proper to consider: (1) whether the defendant initiated and vigorously pursued the transaction; (2) whether there is a ‘sense of surprise’ if the court exercises jurisdiction and (3) whether the transactions in the state are numerous and meaningful.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Any nonresident of this Commonwealth who, acting individually under or through a fictitious business name, or through an agent, servant or employee, shall have done any business in this Commonwealth on or after August 30, 1970, or a resident of this Commonwealth who shall have done business in this Commonwealth on or after August 30, 1970 and thereafter shall have become a nonresident of this Commonwealth or shall conceal his whereabouts, shall be conclusively presumed to have designated the Department of State as his agent for the receipt of service of process in any civil action or proceeding instituted in the courts of this Commonwealth against such individual, if and only if at the time the cause of action accrued or the harm or financial loss occurred, the nonresident or the resident who shall thereafter have become a nonresident, shall have been doing any business within this Commonwealth as heretofore provided.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Causing harm by individuals. Any non-resident of this Commonwealth who, acting outside of this Commonwealth, individually, under or through a fictitious business name, or through an agent, servant or employee, shall have caused any harm within this Commonwealth on or after August 31,1970, shall be subject to service of process in any civil action or proceeding instituted in the courts of this Commonwealth arising out of or by reason of any such conduct. Service of process in any such civil action or proceeding shall be effected through the Department of State as provided in this chapter.”
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.