Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 673 F.2d 1 - S. L. Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

S. L. Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis

673 F.2d 1 · 1982

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
November 2013
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2013

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

901982199020002010decided

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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Commission · National Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co. · DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc.

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

  1. “23 It is undisputed that neither S.L. nor Extruded has at any time owned or leased property or maintained an office or employees within the First Circuit. Neither corporation, apparently, is registered to do business in any state within the First Circuit. Thus, their sole contacts are the purchases and sales and the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “large corporations would be free to roam the entire country in search of venues which might provide them with what, in their opinion, would be a more favorable hearing. Congress would not have expressly provided a limitation on venue had it intended this result.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “for S.L. within the states comprising the First Circuit. There is, however, no evidence that Technical Papers Corp. took any action on the petitioners' behalf other than pursuing the normal course of its own business or that it was compensated for its”
    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.