David v. Weitzman’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
10 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2023
10 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Hess v. Pawloski · Eastway Construction Corp. v. City of New York · Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, 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.
“The first tier involves the threshold question of whether the federal district court has jurisdiction under the forum state’s law. If it does, the second tier involves the question of whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction, allowed by state law, would violate the Due Process Clause[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“slight difference in the wording of these two subsections,” but regarded the difference in wording as of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cody v. Ward“a tortious act outside the state causing injury to person or property within the state.”
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.