The Toro Company and Toro Sales Company v. Ballas Liquidating Company and Weed Eater, Inc., and H. Spencer Stone Associates, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
572 F.2d 1267 · 1978
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 15 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Land-O-Nod Company v. Bassett Furniture Industries Incorporated Eb (1983), The Austad Company, a South Dakota Corporation v. Pennie & Edmonds, a New York Partnership (1987)
13 federal appellate · 15 district · 14 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
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Shaffer v. Heitner · National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Federal Power Commission · Gardner Engineering Corp. v. Page Engineering Co. · Vance M. Thompson. Jr. William Hadley Thompson W. Dane Clay W. Dane Clay, Trustee and R. Mike Butner v. Ecological Science Corporation
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen the claim sued upon is unrelated to the defendant's forum activities, he may have 'no reason to expect to be haled before [the forum state's] court[s].' Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S. 186 , 216 [97 S.Ct. 2569, 2586, 53 L.Ed.2d 683].”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Only recently, we again rejected an argument that jurisdictional significance should be attached to a foreign corporation’s forum activities which were unrelated to the cause of action.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The quantity of contacts with the forum state; (2) The nature and quality of contacts with the forum state; (3) The relationship of the cause of action to the contacts with the forum state; (4) The interest of the state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) The convenience of the parties.”
3 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.