Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 694 F.3d 650 - King v. Taylor

King v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

694 F.3d 650 · 2012

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
2
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on United States v. Olano · Graham v. Connor · Kentucky v. Graham · Tennessee v. Garner · Chambers v. Nasco, 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “means by which a defendant receives notice of an action and is formally brought within a court's jurisdiction.” King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650, 659 (6th Cir.2012) (stating that, between the two defenses,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “cause[s] the court to go to some effort that would be wasted if personal jurisdiction is later found lacking.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[A] motion to dismiss on the basis of improper service made during the period for service may properly be denied as premature.”
    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.