Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 257 Ga. 129 - Gust v. Flint

Gust v. Flint’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
1
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Innovative Clinical & Consulting Services, LLC v. First National Bank of Ames (2005), 185 Ga. App. 845 - Behar v. Aero Med International, Inc. (1988)

6 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

27019871990200020102020decided

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 Coe & Payne Co. v. Wood-Mosaic Corp. · Clarkson Power Flow, Inc. v. Thompson · 180 Ga. App. 904 - Flint v. Gust

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

  1. “(1) did not regularly do business or solicit business within the State of Georgia, (2) did not engage in any persistent course of conduct within the State of Georgia, (3) did not derive substantial revenue from services rendered with the State of Georgia, (4) the only business done by them in the State of Georgia is the transaction which is the subject of the instant action, (5) the only communications or connection they have had with the State of Georgia had been via telephone communication, (6) that neither they nor any of their employees have ever been located within the State of Georgia, (7) the corporate defendant is not domesticated in or authorized to do business in the State of Georgia and does not manufacture goods or produce any services in the State of Georgia.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “requires that an out-of-state defendant must do certain acts within the State of Georgia before [it] can be subjected to personal jurisdiction.”
    2 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.