Woodmar Coin Center, Inc. v. Owen’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2014
16 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 · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Milliken v. Meyer · 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Owen purposely availed himself of the benefits and responsibilities of doing business in this State by soliciting, negotiating and forming a contract with an Indiana resident, The trial court erred by entering summary judgment on this issue."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The factors to be considered in determining whether fair play and substantial justice standards have been met may be summarized as follows: (1) The nature and quality of the contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of contacts with the state; (3) the relationship between those contacts and the cause of action; (4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience of the parties. See Aftanase v. Economy Baler Co. (8th Cir.1965) 343 F.2d 187, 197 . The first three are the primary factors in determining whether International Shoe standards are met. Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[MJaintenance of the instant suit in an Indiana court does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Acting in this state in the capacity of a corporate officer, Traylor negotiated and facilitated the execution of a contract for the sale and purchase of an Indiana corporation from residents of this state. The contract expressly provides it 'shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Indiana.' The stock was transferred in this state, consulting services were rendered here, and partial payment, both Iump sum and periodic, was made in this state. We find Griese Traylor purposely availed itself of the privilege of doing business in this state...."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.