Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 649 F. Supp. 310 - Ronar, Inc. v. Wallace

649 F. Supp. 310 - Ronar, Inc. v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC (2011), Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. Granger (1987)

6 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

2001986199020002010decided

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 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Landis v. North American Co. · Kerotest Mfg Co v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co

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

  1. “commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state ... if he (i) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state, or (ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.-”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[wjhether revenue is 'substantial' under New York law is determined on both relative and absolute scales.” Ronar, Inc. v. Wallace, 649 F.Supp. 310 , 316 (S.D.N.Y.1986); see also Vecchio v. S & T Mfg. Co., 601 F.Supp. 55 , 57 (E.D.N.Y.1984); Allen v. Canadian Gen. Elec. Co., 65 A.D.2d 39 , 410 N.Y.S.2d 707 , 708-09 (3d Dep't 1978). Adventure Outdoors asserts that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the foreign action is pending rather than decided, comity counsels that priority generally goes to the suit filed first.”
    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.