United States v. The Montreal Trust Company, and Tillie v. Lechtzier, Executors of the Estateof Isidor J. Klein, Deceased’s Empirical Analysis
358 F.2d 239 · 1966
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 30 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 194 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc. (1977), Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller (1981)
49 federal appellate · 30 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 · Bell v. Hood · McGee v. International Life Insurance · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance 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 194 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) Acts which are the basis of jurisdiction. As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary, or his executor or administrator, who in person or through an agent: 1. transacts any business within the state; or 2. commits a tortious act within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act; or 3. commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act, if he (i) 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 the state, or (ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; or 4. owns, uses or possesses any real property situated within the state.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[a] threshold determination that personal jurisdiction exists `does not relieve [the plaintiff] ... at the trial of the case-in-chief from proving the facts upon which jurisdiction is based by a preponderance of the evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““The District Court, in dealing with this issue at the preliminary hearing, we believe, placed a too heavy burden on the government in requiring it to establish a strong factual basis upon which jurisdiction is predicated in this case. At this early stage of the proceedings, the government should not have been required to submit proof which would, in effect, establish the validity of its claim- — and its right to the relief sought. Rather, to bring § 302 into operation, and thereby invoke the- jurisdiction of the District Court, the government was required to establish only prima facie tax-related transactions of Klein in New York.””
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.