Fraser v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(l)(a) A person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from any of the following acts: 1. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state. 2. Committing a tortious act within this state. 3. Owning, using, possessing, or holding a mortgage or other lien on any real property within this state. 4. Contracting to insure a person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting. 5. With respect to a proceeding for alimony, child support, or division of property in connection with an action to dissolve a marriage or with respect to an independent action for support of dependents, maintaining a matrimonial domicile in this state at the time of the commencement of this action or, if the defendant resided in this state preceding the commencement of the action, whether cohabiting during that time or not. This paragraph does not change the residency requirement for filing an action for dissolution of marriage. 6. Causing injury to persons or property within this state arising out of an act or omission by the defendant outside this state, if, at or about the time of the injury, either: a. Th”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Doe v. Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc. · Krauser v. Evollution IP Holdings, Inc.

2. “First, the defendant must have contacts related to or giving rise to the plaintiffs cause of action. Second, the defendant must, through those contacts, have purposefully availed itself of forum benefits. Third, the defendant’s contacts with the forum must be such that it could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Letyagin · 902 F. Supp. 2d 1165 - Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Netvertising Ltd.

3. “The reach of [ Florida Statute 48.193(2) ] extends to the limits on personal jurisdiction imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leon v. Cont'l AG · 347 F. Supp. 3d 1047 - St. Johns Vein Ctr., Inc. v. StreamlineMD LLC