Marra v. Shea’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
July 1978
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Milliken v. Meyer · 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““He is neither present, domiciled, nor residing in California; nor is he a citizen of California. He has neither consented to jurisdiction nor has he appeared in the action; he is not doing business in the state. He has not committed an act in the state giving rise to this cause of action, and he owns no property in California. Nor has [he] committed an act outside of the state causing an effect in the state out of which this cause of action arose, since he is not alleged to have participated with Alma R. Bang in the wrongful appropriation of community property. His only ‘act’ relevant to the instant cause of action is that he was a donee of an undivided one-half interest in a certificate of deposit in Tennessee. It was not this ‘act’ which gave rise to a cause of action under California Probate Code § 201.8, but rather the acts of Alma R. Bang in allegedly misappropriating and transferring the community property. Finally, there are no other relationships between [him] and the State of California that would make the exercise of personal jurisdiction reasonable. Plaintiffs’ argument that California is the most convenient forum from the point of view of witnesses, evidence, and several of the parties is not persuasive. A court ‘does not acquire [personal] jurisdiction by being the “center of gravity” of the controversy, or the most convenient location for litigation.’ Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 254 , 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). There must be such minimum ”
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.