Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 254 F.2d 242 - Wsaz, Inc. v. Gerald Lyons, Wsaz, Inc. v. Calvin Gearhart

Wsaz, Inc. v. Gerald Lyons, Wsaz, Inc. v. Calvin Gearhart’s Empirical Analysis

254 F.2d 242 · 1958

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
6
states following
September 1989
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently September 1989 · most notably Arrowsmith v. United Press International (1963), Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc. (1968)

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

3301958196019701980decided

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 · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Pennoyer v. Neff · Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · International Harvester Company of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

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

  1. ““All that is necessary here is that the cause of action asserted shall be ‘connected’ with the business done. Defendant asserts that the alleged libel has no connection with its business done in Kentucky. But in view of its admission that its usual business was the business of telecasting and that this included news programs, and in view of the undisputed fact that the alleged libel was part of news programs regularly broadcast by defendant, this contention has no merit. “The question of due process would seem to be settled by the case of McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. (citation), as well as by International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, supra. While defendant was not present in the territory of the forum, it certainly had substantial contacts with it. It sought and executed contracts for the sale of advertising service to be performed and actually performed by its own act within the territory of the forum. We conclude that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he not be present within the' territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’.””
    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.