Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 F.3d 374 - Nuovo Pignone v. Storman Asia M/v

Nuovo Pignone v. Storman Asia M/v’s Empirical Analysis

310 F.3d 374 · 2002

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Freudensprung v. Offshore Technical Services, Inc. (2004), Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc. (2006)

29 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions

600200220102020decided

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 · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.

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

  1. “(1) whether the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, i.e., whether it purposely directed its activities toward the forum state or purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities there; (2) whether the plaintiffs cause of action arises out of or results from the defendant’s forum-related contacts; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “must accept as true [the plaintiff's] `uncontroverted allegations and resolve in [his] favor all conflicts between the [jurisdictional] facts contained in the parties' affidavits and other documentation.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the district court decides the motion to dismiss without holding an evidentiary hearing, [the plaintiff] must make only a prima facie showing of the facts on which jurisdiction is predicated.”
    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.