46 Mich. App. 566 - Kiefer v. May’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2000 · most notably Lanier v. American Board of Endodontics (1988), 508 F. Supp. 434 - Thermal Insulation Systems, Inc. v. Ark-Seal Corp. (1980)
6 federal appellate · 4 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.
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Defendant has placed great emphasis on the fact that he was not physically present in the state when he executed the note. This Court is of the opinion that one need not be physically present in the state to ‘transact business within the state.’ “Modern technology has taken us far beyond the point where two men must stand in each other’s physical presence to transact business. Widespread use of the telephone and the mails make actual physical presence unnecessary in many cases. New methods of communication, such as the picture phone, allow a businessman to be ‘electronically present’ in a state. Exact copies of executed documents can be transmitted electronically in a matter of seconds. “For all practical purposes, transactions accomplished with such devices have the same effect as if the two men had been in each other’s physical presence.” 208 N.W.2d at 542 [quoting from McGraw v. Matthaei, 340 F.Supp. 162,164 (E.D.Mich. 1972)].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The statute uses the phrase “The transaction of any business within the state”. When we keep in mind that we are dealing not with general jurisdiction which is provided for in another part of the statute ... which would expose a non-resident to suit in Michigan for any cause wherever it arose, but rather with limited jurisdiction which exposes a non-resident to suit in Michigan only for a cause which arose out of the relationship serving as a basis for such jurisdiction we see no federal constitutional question. (Emphasis provided by the Court).”
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.