Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 418 FSUPP 150 - Stith v. Manor Baking Co.

Stith v. Manor Baking Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
July 2002
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2002 · most notably Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American National Bank (1981), Curran v. Portland Superintending School Committee (1977)

4 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

1501976198019902000decided

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 · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Professor Moore believes that a claim “arises” in any state in which the defendant’s contacts are sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction in that state. Further, Section 1391(c), Title 28, United States Code, provides that a corporation may be sued in any district in which it is “doing business.” This provision has been construed to mean that if a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, it is “doing business” there for venue purposes. Because [defendant] is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district for the reasons stated [above] its motion to dismiss for improper venue will be denied.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may be brought only in the judicial district where all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose, except as otherwise provided by law. (c) A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““However, a mere agency relationship alone is not sufficient. Unless as a consequence of the relationship, Campbell-Taggart had notice of the charges filed with the EEOC by plaintiffs and participated in the conciliation process, the purposes for the requirement that a defendant be named as a respondent in the EEOC charges would be frustrated."”
    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.