McLaughlin v. Copeland’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 28 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Chrysler Corporation v. Fedders Corporation Sa (1981), 535 F. Supp. 1125 - Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc. (1982)
6 federal appellate · 28 district · 13 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. § 1441
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Hanson v. Denckla · McGee v. International Life Insurance · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) In general — A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who directly or by an agent: (1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State; (2) Contracts to supply goods, food, services, or manufactured products in the State; * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellee also relies on subsection (a) of § 6-103 for his assertion that the cause of action, for application of subsection (b)(4), must have arisen out of the defendant’s “persistent course of conduct” in the State. Subsection (a) states: “(a) Condition. — If jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, he may be sued only on a cause of action arising from any act enumerated in this section.” As already discussed, due process does not require that the cause of action arise out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum. The reference to “act enumerated in this section” with respect to subsection (b)(4) refers only to the act or omission which causes tortious injury; to hold otherwise would be to impose a limitation not required by due process. Furthermore, subsection (b)(4) would add little or nothing to the statute if it were held that the cause of action must arise out of the defendant’s doing or soliciting business, engaging in any other persistent course of conduct or deriving substantial revenue from activities in the State. Such actions would be provided for in other sections of § 6-103. (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.)”
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.