397 F. Supp. 476 - Thornton v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 1996
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman · Hoffman v. Blaski
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A court of this State may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident, or his executor or administrator, as to a cause of action arising from any of the acts, omissions, ownership, use or possession enumerated in this section, in the same manner as if he were a resident of the State, if in person or through an agent, he: (b) Commits a tortious act or omission within this State, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act; or (c) Commits a tortious injury in this State caused by an act or omission outside this State, if the tortfeasor 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....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the defendant must purposefully establish sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state to satisfy due process requirements.... Unilateral action by the plaintiff or a third party cannot create the requisite ‘minimum contacts.’ ... Rather, the defendant must perform ‘some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’ ... Second, a forum’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant must comport with ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”
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.