Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 F.3d 1011 - Boschetto v. Hansing

Boschetto v. Hansing’s Empirical Analysis

539 F.3d 1011 · 2008

Citation profile

119
cited by 119 later decisions
9
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 34 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc. (2011), CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc. (2011)

7 federal appellate · 34 district · 12 state decisions

930200820102020decided

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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Calder v. Jones

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

  1. “(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.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The plaintiff bears the burden on the first two prongs. If the plaintiff establishes both prongs one and two, the defendant must come forward with a “compelling case” that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable. But if the plaintiff fails at the first step, the jurisdictional inquiry ends and the case must be dismissed.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[c]onflicts between the parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor,”
    6 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.