556 So. 2d 303 - McDaniel v. Ritter’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Little v. Liquid Air Corp. (1994), Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp. (1993)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 47 state decisions
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 49 U.S.C. § 1301 · 49 U.S.C. § 41310
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in § 6. (2) Contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include: (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“any business or perform[ed] any character of work or service in this state.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.