Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 688 F.3d 558 - Fiore v. Walden

Fiore v. Walden’s Empirical Analysis

688 F.3d 558 · 2011

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023

4 district · 2 state decisions

15020112020decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1356 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391

Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

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

  1. “(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “definitely knew, at some point after the seizure but before providing the alleged false probable cause affidavit, that [respondents] had a significant connection to Nevada.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the false probable cause affidavit aspect of the case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.