Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 285 FSUPP 394 - Willner v. Thompson

Willner v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
April 1982
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 1982

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

70196819701980decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441

Relies on Hanson v. Denckla · Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc. · McKee Electric Co. v. Rauland-Borg Corp. · Kramer v. Vogl · A. Millner Co. v. Noudar, Lda.

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

  1. “Any civil action brought in a State court against a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title may be removed by the foreign state to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Plaintiffs admit that this defendant conducted no business in New York in his own right and they made no showing that the activities of the corporation may be attributed to him as the corporation’s alter ego. Plaintiffs do not allege that the corporate entity is a mere facade or sham to protect the individual defendant. Since the corporate defendant is not an agent of the individual defendant, its acts cannot possibly be attributed to him. It follows that the individual defendant did not transact any business in New York and could not be validly served in California . . . ” (emphasis supplied) 285 F.Supp. at 397.”
    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.