Cryomedics, Inc. v. Spembly, Limited’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co. (1977), Chrysler Corporation v. Fedders Corporation Sa (1981)
6 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 293
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board · Brunette MacHine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc. · Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,657 Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation, Leasco World Trade Company (u.k.) Ltd. v. Robert Maxwell, Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation, Leasco World Trade Company (u.k.) Limited v. Isidore Kerman
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a federal court is asked to exercise personal jurisdiction over an alien defendant sued on a claim arising out of federal law, jurisdiction may appropriately be determined on the basis of the alien’s aggregated contacts with the United States as a whole, regardless of whether the contacts with the state in which the district court sits would be sufficient if considered alone.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. When a defendant is a citizen of the United States, there are very real differences in convenience between litigating in a state where it does business or resides, and in one where it has only insignificant contacts; this concern is an important consideration underlying the Fourteenth Amendment’s restrictions on the reach of state court jurisdiction. The considerations are entirely different, however, when an alien is involved, espedaily one . . . which maintains a place of business only in the country of its incorporation. [Such a defendant] has no reason based on fairness to prefer any one particular district to another .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The few courts that have explicitly considered the appropriate unit of government with which there must be contacts have all agreed that the aggregation of an alien defendant’s contacts with the United States is the proper procedure in a case arising under federal law ____ It is difficult to see how International Shoe and its progeny, which dealt with the limits on the jurisdiction of state courts, and on which Spembly bases its arguments, could be read to limit the jurisdiction of a federal court on a federally created cause of action____”
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.