322 F. Supp. 594 - Malinow v. Eberly’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 20 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Margoles v. Johns (1973), Geelhoed v. Jensen (1976)
6 federal appellate · 20 district · 9 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
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · McGee v. International Life Insurance · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Condition.—If jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, he may be sued only on a cause of action arising from any act enumerated in this section. (b) In general.—A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who directly or by agent: (1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State; (2) Contracts to supply goods, food, services, or manufactured products in the State; (3) Causes tortious injury in the State by an act or omission in the State; (4) Causes tortious injury in the State or outside of the State by an act or omission outside the State if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct in the state or derives substantial revenue from goods, food, services, or manufactured products used or consumed in the State; (5) Has an interest in, uses, or possesses real property in the State; or (6) Contracts to insure or act as surety for, or on, any person, property, risk, contract, obligation, or agreement located, executed, or to be performed within the State at the time the contract is made, unless the parties otherwise provide in writing.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Subdivision (b) is designed to prevent assertion of independent claims unrelated to any activity described in subdivision (a) of § 1.03. [Emphasis supplied by Judge Miller.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) In general — A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who directly or by an agent: (1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State; (2) Contracts to supply goods, food, services, or manufactured products in the State;”
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.