Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink’s Empirical Analysis
284 F.3d 1007 · 2002
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 27 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 202 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co. (2004), Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy (2006)
38 federal appellate · 27 district · 4 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 7006 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Calder v. Jones · Missouri v. Jenkins Ex Rel. Agyei
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 202 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A letter rogatory, also known as a 'letter of request,’ is a request from a court in the United States to a court in a foreign country requesting international judicial assistance, which is often employed to obtain evidence abroad, but is also utilized in effecting service of process and particularly in those countries which prohibit other methods of service.... Letters rogatoiy are a time consuming, cumbersome process and should not be utilized unless there are no other options available. If the laws of the foreign country permit other methods of service, the use of letters rogatoiy is not recommended given the habitual time delays of up to a year or more in execution of the requests.” 3 . The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and other courts have held that ultimately, "service of process ordered under Rule 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in contravention of the laws of the foreign country.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual — other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed — may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States ... (3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)(2) provides: "Serving a Corporation, Partnership, or Association. Unless federal law provides otherwise or the defendant's waiver has been filed, a domestic or foreign corporation, or a partnership or other unincorporated association that is subject to suit under a common name, must be served ... at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under 00(2X00).”
2 later decisions 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.