Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 434 A2D 988 - Mouzavires v. Baxter

Mouzavires v. Baxter’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
6
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 70 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Reuber v. United States (1984), Edmond v. United States Postal Service General Counsel (1991)

16 federal appellate · 70 district · 22 state decisions

36019811990200020102020decided

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 · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Shaffer v. Heitner

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

  1. “(1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia; (2) contracting to supply services in the District of Columbia; (3) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission in the District of Columbia; (4) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission outside the District of Columbia if [the defendant] regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered, in the District of Columbia; (5) having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in the District of Columbia; (6) contracting to insure or act as surety for or on any person, property, or risk,- contract, obligation, or agreement located, executed, or to be performed within the District of Columbia at the time of contracting, unless the parties otherwise provide in writing; or (7) marital or parent and child relationship in the District of Columbia....”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Both Hanson and McGee reaffirmed the ... principle that notions of fundamental fairness require that the defendant’s contacts with the forum be evaluated qualitatively rather than quantitatively____ These considerations assume greater significance when the defendant’s contacts with the forum arise out of a contractual arrangement with a forum plaintiff. Modern systems of communication have revolutionized commercial transactions to such an extent that parties may negotiate by telephone certain contractual arrangements which only a generation ago would have necessitated the physical presence of both parties in the same forum____ Clearly, the most critical inquiry is not whether the nonresident defendant is physically present in the forum but whether the defendant’s contacts with the forum are of such a quality and nature that they manifest a deliberate and voluntary association with the forum.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “it apparent that the Due Process Clause did not preclude the California court from entering a judgment binding on respondent. It is sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial connection 9 with that State ... It cannot be denied that California has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their insurers refuse to pay claims. These residents would be at a severe disadvantage if they were forced to follow the insurance company to a distant State in order to hold it legally accountable.”
    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.