Walker v. Newgent’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

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. “In deciding whether the state jurisdictional statute confers jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a diversity suit, it must be determined that (1) the defendant is in fact amenable to service under the statute (state law of the forum controls- this question), and (2) if the state statute has been complied with, then federal law must be applied to determine whether assertion of jurisdiction over the defendant comports with due process.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Allen v. Toshiba Corp. · 494 F. Supp. 330 - Hales v. First Appalachian Corp.

2. “Arguing that ContiCarriers is the “alter ego” of its parent company, Continental Grain, the Conners contend that Continental Grain’s Texas contacts should be imputed to ContiCarriers. ContiCarri-ers is the wholly owned subsidiary of Continental Grain, which operates several grain elevators and maintains offices in Texas. Generally, a foreign parent corporation is not subject to the jurisdiction of a forum state simply because its subsidiary is present or doing business there. The mere existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship is not sufficient to warrant the assertion of jurisdiction over the foreign parent. In some circumstances a close relationship between a parent and its subsidiary may justify a finding that the parent “does business” in a jurisdiction through the local activities of its subsidiaries. The rationale for such an exercise of jurisdiction is that the parent corporation exerts such dominance and control over its subsidiary “that they do not in reality constitute separate and distinct corporate entities but are one and the same corporation for purposes of jurisdiction. ” These principles apply not only in the situation where jurisdiction is sought over the parent corporation through its subsidiary’s local activities, but also when jurisdiction is sought over the subsidiary through its parent corporation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Preussag Aktiengesellschaft v. Coleman

3. “Only if the nonresident defendant has such “minimum contacts” with the state “that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and [substantial] justice’,” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), or if the defendant has performed some act “by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws,” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958); McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199 , 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957), may the forum, consistently with due process, extend its long arm to embrace it. Jetco Electronic Industries, 473 F.2d at 1234 ; see also Product Promotions, Inc., 495 F.2d at 494 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rockwell International Corp. v. KND Corp.