Tamburo v. Dworkin’s Empirical Analysis
601 F.3d 693 · 2010
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 22 (§ 12 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at the forum state or purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in that state, and (2) the alleged injury arises out of the defendant's forum-related activities.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“directly relate to the challenged conduct or transaction”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) intentional conduct (or 'intentional and allegedly tortious' conduct); (2) expressly aimed at the forum state; (3) with the defendant's knowledge that the effects would be felt-that is, the plaintiff would be injured-in the forum state.”
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.