Mallory Engineering, Inc. v. Ted R. Brown & Associates, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2012
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 13 state decisions
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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · Fuentes v. Shevin · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Milliken v. Meyer
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether the claims of the plaintiff arise from the activities of the defendant and thus become cognizable in accordance with 78-27-24, reference to the Legislature’s intent in enacting the Utah Long Arm Statute is illuminating. In declaring the purpose of the act the Legislature explained in 78-27-22: It is declared, as a matter of legislative determination, that the public interest demands the State provide its citizens with an effective means of redress against nonresident persons who through certain significant minimal contacts with this State, incur obligations to citizens entitled to the State’s protection____ The provisions of this act, to ensure maximum protection to citizens of this state, should be applied so as to assert jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction is the relationship of the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, to each other.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Any person ... whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent does any of the follow ing enumerated acts, submits himself ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any claim arising from: (1) the transaction of any business within the state; (2) contracting to supply services or goods in this state; (3) the causing of any injury within this state whether tortious or by breach of warranty; (4) the ownership, use, or possession of any real estate situated in this state; (5) contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.