Blum v. Kawaguchi, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2002
5 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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 · Aftanase v. Economy Baler Co. · 48 Wis. 2d 54 - Zerbel v. H. L. Federman & Co. · Atkins v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Duple Motor Bodies, Ltd. v. Hollingsworth
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Court concludes that service of process is authorized either by section (a) ‘transacting any business in this state,’ or section (b) ‘contracting to supply services or things in this state.’ It is true that all contacts and relations with Nebraska appear to be indirect in that the sale was made through intermediate entities, that defendant Kawaguchi, Ltd. is not alleged to have an agent within Nebraska, nor to be licensed to do business in Nebraska. The only direct connection thus far apparently is found in defendant Kawaguchi’s answer to interrogatories wherein it answered that one of its employees was concerned with the installation of the particular piece of machinery involved in this litigation. But the statute in question does not require that contacts be direct. It is a fair statement that a sale of machinery would be classified a transaction of business in Nebraska and it does not follow that an indirect sale would necessarily alter the nature of the transaction. It might be a different situation had the defendant made a sale elsewhere with the expectation that it was to be a final sale (that is, not for resale). Such is not the case here. It also follows that there was a contract to provide things in Nebraska in the indirect sense. Blum v. Kawaguchi, Ltd., 331 F.Supp. 216, 220 (D.Neb.1971).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Jurisdiction over a person. (1) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person’s: (a) Transacting any business in this state; (b) Contracting to supply services or things in this state; (c) Causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this state; (d) Causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this state; (e) Having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in this state. .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“indicates clearly the legislative intention to apply the minimum contacts rule where it does not offend traditional concepts of fair play and substantial justice.”
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.