Taubler v. Giraud’s Empirical Analysis
655 F.2d 991 · 1981
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 13 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Decker Coal Company v. Commonwealth Edison Company (1986), Flynt Distributing Co. v. Harvey (1984)
20 federal appellate · 13 district · 6 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 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc. · Rush v. Savchuk
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“under the totality of the circumstances the defendant could reasonably anticipate being called upon to present a defense in a distant forum.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"If the nonresident defendant's activities within a state are `substantial' or `continuous and systematic,' there is a sufficient relationship between the defendant and the state to support jurisdiction even if the cause of action is unrelated to the defendant's forum activities. [citations omitted] "If, however, the defendant's activities are not so pervasive as to subject him to general jurisdiction, the issue whether jurisdiction will lie turns on the nature and quality of the defendant's contacts in relation to the cause of action. In our circuit, we use the following approach in making this evaluation: (1) The nonresident defendant must do some act or consumate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking its laws. (2) The claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities. (3) Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. [citations omitted]."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. The extent of defendant’s purposeful interjection into Montana; “2. The burden on defendant of defending in Montana; “3. The extent of conflict with the sovereignty of defendant’s state; “4. Montana’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; “5. The most efficient resolution of the controversy; “6. The importance of Montana to plaintiffs interest in convenient and effective relief; and “7. The existence of an alternative forum.””
2 later decisions 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.