Peterson v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court announced the “effects test” for personal jurisdiction in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984).... The Supreme Court concluded that personal jurisdiction over the two reporters existed in California because they had directed their intentional tortious actions toward California.... The key similarity [in "effects test” cases] is the allegation of an intentional tort related to activity, particularly commercial activity, in the forum state and where the brunt of the impact of the injury is also felt in the forum state. The facts of this case do not meet this standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“effects-test” jurisdiction over the conspiracy itself, as nothing in the present record before the Court indicates that the conspiracy or the effects thereof were directed at Minnesota. The Supreme Court announced the “effects test” for personal jurisdiction in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984).... The Supreme Court concluded that personal jurisdiction over the two reporters existed in California because they had directed their intentional tortious actions toward California.... The key similarity [in”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The [Hunt] court noted that Minnesota was the only state that had significant contacts with all of the defendants and that the defendants intentionally set in motion financial actions that injured Minnesotans.”
1 later decision 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.