Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 270 Ala. 697 - Ex Parte Emerson

Ex Parte Emerson’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
July 1980
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 1980 · most notably New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1962), Elkhart Engineering Corp. v. Werke (1965)

17 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

150196019701980decided

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 · Aldrich v. Tyler Grocery Co. · Boyd v. Warren Paint & Color Co.

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

  1. ““ . . . [I]n the instant case the court granted the motion to quash the service. This ruling put the plaintiff out of the jurisdiction of the court. See Ex parte Hartwell, 238 Ala. 62 , 188 So. 891 . The plaintiff could not plead over and therefore has no remedy under § 242, Title 7, Code of 1940, as held under Ex parte Helveston, supra [ 267 Ala. 94 , 100 So.2d 7, 8 ]. Furthermore the petitioner could not take a nonsuit from the order with a right of appeal because § 819, Title 7, Code of 1940, applies only to rulings upon pleadings, admissions or rejection of evidence or upon charges to the jury. [Cases cited.] “Obviously the order granting the motion to quash the service is not such a final judgment in itself as will support an appeal. “Since the petitioner has no remedy by appeal, she has no adequate remedy at law to review the action of the court granting the motion to quash and therefore the only remedy which she now has is a review by mandamus.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The Supreme Court of Alabama has consistently recognized that the issue of jurisdiction pursuant to substituted service of process under Alabama’s long-arm statute is not controlled by state law but rather poses a federal question of whether subjection of the nonresident defendant to the sovereignty of Alabama comports with federal due process.”
    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.