Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 503 F.3d 1050 - Menken v. Emm

Menken v. Emm’s Empirical Analysis

503 F.3d 1050 · 2007

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
February 2024
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 21 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc. (2011), Fiore v. Walden (2011)

5 federal appellate · 21 district ·

400200720102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1404

Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.

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

  1. “(1) the extent of the defendant’s purposeful interjection into the forum state’s affairs; (2) the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum; (3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendants’ state; (4) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiffs interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the existence of an alternative forum.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'present a compelling case' that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.”
    2 later decisions 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.