Marsh v. Kitchen’s Empirical Analysis
480 F.2d 1270 · 1973
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co. (1977), Donatelli v. National Hockey League (1990)
11 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 472 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mississippi Pub Corporation v. Murphree · United States v. First National City Bank · Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc. v. Franklyn
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Acts which are the basis of jurisdiction. As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary, or his executor or administrator, who in person or through an agent: (1) transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state: or (2) commits a tortious act within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act; or (3) commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act, if he (i) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state, or (ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; or (4) owns, uses or possesses any real property situated within the state.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No such traditional agency relationship existed between appellees and the New York-based government agents.... Each of the individual defendants in the instant case was required as part of his official duties as an agent of the United States to seek out and arrest violators of federal law. Because in this case the suspected perpetrator committed a crime in Missouri and then travelled to New York, it was necessary to use federal agents in both states to effect his capture. In no way, however, did the New York officers become agents of appellees. The notification .. . that an arrest warrant had been issued certainly did not create an agency relationship. . . . Furthermore, the New York agents were not acting on behalf of and subject to the control of appellees. . . . The New York agents were under the control of the warrant, which commanded the arrest of Marsh, and of their own superiors in New York, who directed how and when the arrest should be made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The record establishes that neither [of the defendants/appellees] ever entered New York. They therefore could not have . .. committed a tortious act within the state in person. Marsh so concedes. He nevertheless argues that appellees ... committed tortious acts in New York through their agents, within the meaning of [the New York long-arm statute, providing for jurisdiction over a person who “commits a tortious act within the state”]. He argues that the government agents who arrested and processed him in New York were the personal agents of appellees. Therefore, so the argument goes, the actions of these New York agents are attributable to appellees and provide the basis for personal jurisdiction over appellees.”
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.