Ziegler v. Indian River County’s Empirical Analysis
64 F.3d 470 · 1995
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 27 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Lee v. City of Los Angeles (2001), Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen (1998)
26 federal appellate · 27 district ·
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. § 1404 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Toliver v. County of Sullivan · Taylor v. List · Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Mellon Bank, N.A. · Sher v. Johnson
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in California, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) [their] claims arise out of defendants' California-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction would be reasonable.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“engages in conduct aimed at, and having effect in, the . . . state.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the extent of a defendant’s purposeful interjection; (2) the burden on the defendant in defending in the forum; (3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant’s state; (4) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiffs interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the existence of an alternative forum. No one factor is dispositive; a court must balance all seven.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.