McQuay, Inc. v. Samuel Schlosberg, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 11 district · 12 state decisions

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

1. ““Fundamentally it seems to the court that to permit in personam jurisdiction in this case under either of the Minnesota long-arm statutes is to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. If plaintiff’s position is sound, then it or any other Minnesota manufacturer can sue all of its customers wherever they may be located in the United States who for good or bad reasons have failed to pay their bills or the purchase price of goods. Counsel would argue that the activity generated by virtue of a corporation in a foreign state giving a salesman who is travelling in that foreign state an order which is to be filled in Minnesota is sufficient minimal contacts to give jurisdiction. By the same token, if this were sound, the plaintiff could be sued in any state where it submits a purchase order for raw materials and supplies and the goods are shipped to Minnesota. This concept almost completely obliterates state lines and would lead to the result that any one who deals with a Minnesota resident in any way or buys a product manufactured by any Minnesota company, can be brought into the Minnesota courts to respond to a suit.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker Management Inc. v. FHC Enterprises, Inc. · Trans-Continent Refrigerator Co. v. a Little Bit of Sweden, Inc.

2. “Subdivision 1. As to a cause of action arising from any acts enumerated in this subdivision, a court of this state with jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise personal jurisdiction over any foreign corporation or any nonresident individual, or his personal representative, in the same manner as if it were a domestic corporation or he were a resident of this state. This section applies if, in person or through an agent, the foreign corporation or nonresident individual: sfc * sfs $ s}: * (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. Minn.Stat. § 543.19.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 441 F. Supp. 317 - Jones v. Bankers Trust Co.

3. “The flow of commerce was initiated by M & D, by its contact with Fournie in Illinois. M & D sought out Fournie in Illinois, and through aggressive solicitation, sold its product to Fournie. To permit Missouri courts to have jurisdiction in this case would amount to an open invitation to Missouri residents to go into other states, solicit business as an aggressor, and then, as a practical defense to any claim asserted by a nonresident buyer that the product sold was defective, drag the buyer into Missouri courts, as a strategic counter-move.... Such a practice would violate the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, as mandated by International Shoe.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Al-Jon, Inc. v. Garden Street Iron & Metal, Inc.