Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 321 FSUPP 977 - Standard Leasing Co. v. Performance Systems, Inc.

Standard Leasing Co. v. Performance Systems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
January 1990
most recently cited

1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1990

1 district · 5 state decisions

50197119801990decided

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 · McKanna v. Edgar · O'Brien v. Lanpar Company · Sun-X International Company v. Witt · Uvalde Rock Asphalt Co. v. Consolidated Carpet Corp.

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

  1. ““ * * * Such would appear to be: (1) The nonresident defendant or foreign corporation must purposefully do some act or consummate some transaction in the forum state; (2) the cause of action must arise from, or be connected with, such act or transaction; and (3) the assumption of jurisdiction by the forum state must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, consideration being given to the quality, nature, and extent of the activity in the forum state, the relative convenience of the parties, the benefits and protection of the laws of the forum state afforded the respective parties, and the basic equities of the situation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “For the purpose of this Act, and without including other acts that may constitute doing business, any foreign corporation, joint stock company, association, partnership, or non-resident natural person shall be deemed doing business in this State by entering into contract by mail or otherwise with a resident of Texas to be performed in whole or in part by either party in this State, or the committing of any tort in whole or in part in this State.”
    1 later decision 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.