Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 655 FSUPP 1418 - Nicholas v. Ashraf

Nicholas v. Ashraf’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
4
states following
September 2007
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2007

4 state decisions

40198719902000decided

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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406

Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno · Shaffer v. Heitner · Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt

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

  1. “defendants have not maintained continuous and substantial forum contacts. Neither casual solicitation not directed to plaintiff nor the fact that Pennsylvania funds may be used to pay for medical bills rises to the level of contacts required by due process and International Shoe, supra [ 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)]. Accepting out-of-state referrals and out-of-state welfare reimbursements do not indicate that defendants ‘purposefully availed (themselves) of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’ Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958).”
    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.