Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 447 F.3d 1357 - Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort and Crystal Palace Casino Whc US

Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort and Crystal Palace Casino Whc US’s Empirical Analysis

447 F.3d 1357 · 2006

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
1
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A. (2009), Licciardello v. Lovelady (2008)

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

330200620102020decided

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 · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall

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

  1. “(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or' resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following acts: (a) Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state. (b) Committing a tortious act within this state.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Personal jurisdiction can arise specifically or generally from a defendant’s contacts in the state. General jurisdiction arises from the defendant’s contacts with the forum that are not directly related to the cause of action being litigated, while specific jurisdiction is founded on a party's activities in the forum that are related to the cause of action alleged in the complaint. If a defendant is subject to the general jurisdiction of the court, the defendant must respond in that court to any cause of action, regardless of where the cause of action arose.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A prima facie case is established if the plaintiff puts forth enough evidence to withstand a motion for a directed verdict.”
    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.