32 F. Supp. 2d 47 - Hamilton v. Accu-Tek’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2016
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I. The court must first determine if the forum state has an appreciable interest in the litigation, i.e., whether the litigation raises serious issues whose resolution would be affected by, or have a probable impact on the vindication of, policies expressed in the substantive, procedural or remedial laws of the forum. If there is an appreciable state interest, the assertion of jurisdiction is prima facie constitutional. II. Once a prima facie case is made, the assertion of jurisdiction will be considered constitutional unless, given the actual circumstances of the case, the defendant is unable to mount a defense in the forum state without suffering relatively substantial hardship.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary ... who in person or through an agent . 1. commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state ... if he ... expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is the characteristic relevant to the matter at issue that determines whether a product is the same as and substitutable for another, and therefore, whether the two are interchangeable. ...”
1 later decision 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.