Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 445 F.3d 809 - Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.

Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

445 F.3d 809 · 2006

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. (2009), 949 So. 2d 1 - Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. (2007)

10 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

210200620102020decided

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 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Bullion v. Gillespie · Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co. · Thompson v. Chrysler Motors Corp. · D.J. Investments, Inc. v. Metzeler Motorcycle Tire Agent Gregg, Inc.

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

  1. “[w]hether the laws of Mississippi allow for a medical monitoring cause of action, whereby a plaintiff can recover medical monitoring costs for exposure to a harmful substance without proving current physical injuries from that exposure?”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “circumstances must be such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The district court is not obligated to consult only the assertions in the plaintiff's complaint in determining whether a prima facie case for jurisdiction has been made. Rather, the district court may consider the contents of the record at the time of the motion ....”
    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.