Milliken v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis
311 U.S. 457 · 1940
Citation profile
891 federal appellate · 744 district · 2,053 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5,630 later decisions (100 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950)
891 federal appellate · 744 district · 2,053 state decisions — followed in 49 states
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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Blackmer v. United States · Fauntleroy v. Lum · Henry McDonald v. F a Mabee
Cited together with International Shoe Co. v. Washington · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall
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 5,630 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
289 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution precludes any inquiry into the merits of the cause of action, the logic or consistency of the decision, or the validity of the legal principles on which the judgment is based.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * the authority of a state over one of its citizens is not terminated by the mere fact of his absence from the state. The state which accords him privileges and affords protection to him and his property by virtue of his domicile may also exact reciprocal duties. * * * That relationship is not dissolved by mere absence from the state. * * * One such incidence of domicile is amenability to suit within the state even during sojourns without the state, where the state has provided and employed a reasonable method for apprising such an absent party of the proceedings against him.”
6 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.