Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 549 FSUPP 389 - Fischer v. Hilton

Fischer v. Hilton’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

5 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2016

5 district · 4 state decisions

501982199020002010decided

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 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · 513 F. Supp. 1043 - Moore v. Little Giant Industries, Inc. · Gyorgy v. Victor Henry Associates, Inc · 497 F. Supp. 534 - Baron & Co., Inc. v. Bank of New Jersey

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

  1. “The two preceding clauses of (c)(4) require some pattern of activity. The nonresident must regularly do or solicit business or engage in a persistent course of conduct. Therefore, given these two clauses, it is logical for this Court to require more than one sale under the substantial revenue clause. [Citation omitted] This Court need not, however, come to a definite conclusion as to the meaning of subsection (c)(4). It is sufficient in this case to state even if one transaction could satisfy subsection (c)(4), [footnote omitted] the sale of one tractor-trailor does not satisfy the substantial revenue requirement. There is left to another day the question of whether a single sale of a much greater magnitude could satisfy subsection (c)(4).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As to a cause of action brought by any person arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-resident, or his personal representative, who in person or through an agent: (1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State; [or] .... .... (4) Causes tortious injury in the State or outside of the State by an act or omission outside the State if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct in the State or derives substantial revenue from services, or things used or consumed in the State....”
    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.