Barnstone v. Congregation Am Echad’s Empirical Analysis
574 F.2d 286 · 1978
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably Scullin Steel Company v. National Railway Utilization Corp (1982), Mountaire Feeds, Inc. v. Agro Impex, S. A. (1982)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Hanson v. Denckla · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · O'Brien v. Lanpar Company · Agrashell, Inc. v. Bernard Sirotta Company, Edwin M. Sirotta, and Milton A. Sirotta, and Third-Party v. Hammons Products Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent · Atwood Hatcheries v. Heisdorf & Nelson Farms
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“would appear to constitute unilateral partial performance,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Assuming that plaintiff’s endeavor in making the drawings, renderings and models in Texas constitutes partial performance, it is the opinion of the undersigned that the defendant’s contacts with the State are insufficient to satisfy the Hanson and O’Brien tests of purposeful activity by defendant within the State of Texas. . . . It is well settled that the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a non-resident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state. Hanson v. Denckla, supra, 357 U.S. [235] at p. 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228 , [ 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 ]. After careful review of the pleadings and affidavits, the undersigned is of the opinion that defendant has neither transacted any purposeful activity within the State of Texas nor has it invoked the benefits and protection of the laws of Texas and thus fails to meet the tests for jurisdiction as described in O’Brien, supra. 3”
2 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.