Drake v. Hammond Square’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. “The basic due process requirement for jurisdiction over a person is minimum contacts with the forum state. International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). An individual is not subject to the jurisdiction of a forum with which he has established no “contacts, ties or relations” International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. at 319 , 66 S.Ct. at 160 , 90 L.Ed. at 104 . The contacts with the forum state cannot be “isolated”, “fortuitous”, or “attenuated”. There must be a substantial connection between the defendant’s activities and the forum state, but physical entry into the forum state is not essential. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. [462], 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Plaintiffs residence is not irrelevant to the inquiry, because defendant’s relationship with plaintiff may enhance defendant's contacts with the forum. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 , 104 S.Ct. 1473 , 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984). A person must have fair warning that an activity may subject him to foreign jurisdiction. Burger King, supra.[ 5 ] This allows a potential defendant some assurance as to where he will be liable to suit. World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson, supra [ 444 U.S. 286 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)]; Burger King, supra. The requirement of fair warning is satisfied when a defendant has purposefully directed his activities at a resident of the forum, and the litigation results from foreseeable injuri”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 559 So. 2d 850 - Fox v. Board of Supervisors