Frank E. Basil, Inc. v. Guardino’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2014
3 district · 4 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 · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Furthermore, in determining whether an instate activity may serve as the basis of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the plaintiff's performance does not control: "It is [the defendant's] activity in the state which must provide the basis for jurisdiction." [Citations omitted; see also id., at 74 & n.6.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mouzavires v. Baxter
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.