Mohammed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]here factual assertions amount only to vague generalizations or unsupported allegations, they are not enough to support personal jurisdiction.”
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.