Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 616 F.2d 191 - Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc.

Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

616 F.2d 191 · 1980

Citation profile

183
cited by 183 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

80 federal appellate · 16 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 183 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Ruiz v. Estelle (1982), Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton (1985)

80 federal appellate · 16 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 16 states

111019801990200020102020decided

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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority

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 183 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““When a corporation ‘purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State,’ ... it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to customers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the State. Hence, if the sale of a product of a manufacturer or distributor such as Audi or Volkswagen is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owners or to others. The forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State.” (citation omitted)”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`The ultimate test of in personam jurisdiction is”
    5 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.