Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 578 F.2d 493 - Schum v. Bailey

Schum v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

578 F.2d 493 · 1978

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
3
states following
January 2013
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 11 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. (1996), Melville v. American Home Assurance Co. (1978)

25 federal appellate · 11 district · 14 state decisions

19019781980199020002010decided

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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Shaffer v. Heitner · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York

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.

  1. “[I]t is clear that New Jersey’s strong interest in protecting compensation rights of its domiciliaries is implicated here. Schum, unlike the plaintiff in He-avner, is a domiciliary of New Jersey. Thus New Jersey — which had no interest in protecting any compensation rights of the plaintiff in Heavner — has a strong interest in compensating Schum as a domiciliary plaintiff. The New Jersey cases have almost uniformly applied New Jersey law in instances in which the state had a significant compensation interest, viz., where the plaintiff was a New Jersey domiciliary.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The court determines first the governmental policies evidenced by the laws of each related jurisdiction and second the factual contacts between the parties and each related jurisdiction. A state is deem'ed interested only where application of its law to the facts in issue will foster that state’s policy. This approach does not count up contacts and make quantitative determinations of interest based on which state has the greatest number of contacts. Instead, the qualitative nature of contacts is considered so' that only contacts which are likely to promote valid state policies are considered relevant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[S]ince [the] record reveals no conflict between New York and New Jersey insofar as the application of their substantive laws is concerned, and since the record also reveals that New Jersey has a substantial interest in the application of its own law, we conclude that New Jersey, as an interested forum, would apply its own law of liability.”
    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.