Educational Testing Service v. Katzman’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2018
10 district · 1 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
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 504 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The language in some cases] suggests that the filing of suit is some watershed mark after which the defendant’s activities should not be considered [for purposes of a personal jurisdiction analysis]. [Those courts] have implied that the proper standard for determining whether certain contacts should be considered is the familiar standard found in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), namely, whether consideration of those contacts will offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The due process limitations on a court’s personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants is meant to ensure that individuals have “fair warning that a particular activity may subject [them] to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign [thus giving] a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit [citations omitted].” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2182 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Once a defendant has been served with a complaint, he is on notice that he may be subject to jurisdiction in that forum. At that time, perhaps more than at any other, the defendant who wishes to contest jurisdiction, frequently on the advice of lawyers, begins ordering his affairs to show that he has no contacts with the forum state. To use the date of the filing o”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he emerging doctrine in this area appears to be that actions taken within the forum state by a corporate official in his official capacity may be considered for purposes of establishing jurisdiction over him in his individual capacity. However, actions taken by an individual in his corporate capacity outside the forum state are not necessarily enough to establish jurisdiction over the individual.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over an individual who causes effects in the state by an act done elsewhere with respect to any cause of action arising from these effects unless the nature of the effects and of the individual’s relationship to the state make the exercise of such jurisdiction unreasonable.”
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.