Anderson v. Shiflett’s Empirical Analysis
435 F.2d 1036 · 1971
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Construction Co. (1979), Luckett v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1980)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 · Hanson v. Denckla · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Steinway v. Majestic Amusement Co. · Electro-Craft Corp. v. Maxwell Electronics Corp.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have here a single, isolated transaction in the form of a contract for personal service. The totality of the contacts with Oklahoma was the performance of certain phases of the work at the plaintiff's Okla homa City office. Nothing in the record discloses the reasonable anticipation of contractual consequences in Oklahoma. To support jurisdiction, the plaintiff relies on his own unilateral activities. Under the decision in Hanson v. Denekla [sic] this is not enough. To become subject to Oklahoma jurisdiction, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of doing business in that state and thereby invoke the benefits and protections of its laws. The record before us does not satisfy this requirement. Instead, it shows no more than the unilateral performance of contracted personal service in the forum. The idea that such performance alone can subject the employer to the jurisdiction of the forum has frightening consequences.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“purposefully avail(ed) itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.”
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.