Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 285 Minn. 77 - Hunt v. Nevada State Bank

Hunt v. Nevada State Bank’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

212
cited by 212 later decisions
7
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 51 district · 150 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 212 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Land-O-Nod Company v. Bassett Furniture Industries Incorporated Eb (1983), Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, Wis. (1976)

2 federal appellate · 51 district · 150 state decisions

730196919701980199020002010decided

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 · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Hanson v. Denckla · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Hess v. Pawloski

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

  1. “(a) Owns, uses, or possesses any real or personal property situated in this state, or”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““If a foreign corporation [defendant here] makes a contract with a resient of Minnesota [plaintiff here] to be performed in whole or in part by either party in Minnesota . . . such acts shall be deemed to be doing business in Minnesota . . . ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““(b) Transacts any business within the state or (d) Commits any tort outside of Minnesota causing injury or property damage within Minnesota, if, (1) at the time of the injury, solicitation or service activities were carried on within Minnesota by or on behalf of the defendant, or (2) products, materials or things processed, serviced or manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed within Minnesota in the ordinary course of trade.””
    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.