Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 510 F.2d 1029 - Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Arrow Aluminum Castings Co.

Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Arrow Aluminum Castings Co.’s Empirical Analysis

510 F.2d 1029 · 1975

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
3
states following
October 1998
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 1998 · most notably Rebozo v. Washington Post Co. (1975), Interstate Commerce Commission v. Southern Railway Co. (1976)

15 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

170197519801990decided

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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · Hurn v. Oursler · 22 Ill. 2d 432 - Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. · Arrowsmith v. United Press International

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

  1. “A court of this State may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident, or his executor or administrator, as to a cause of action arising from any of the acts, omissions, ownership, use or possession enumerated in this section, in the same manner as if he were a resident of the State, if in person or through an agent, he: (a) Transacts any business within this State; or (b) Commits a tortious act or omission within this State, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act; or (c) Commits a tortious injury in this State caused by an act or omission outside this State, if the tortfeasor 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 this State”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In a diversity case such as this one, a federal district court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a foreign defendant only if a state court could do so in the proper exercise of state law, here the long arm statute. Erie R. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1933); Arrowsmith v. United Press International, 320 F.2d 219 (2nd Cir. 1963); Stanga v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 268 F.2d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 1959).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “This section shall not apply to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act.”
    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.