Herbert v. Direct Wire and Cable, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. · John G. Kolbe, Inc. v. Chromodern Chair Co.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]laintiff received at his Virginia mailing address Spicer’s July 16, 1982 letter offering him a position as manufacturer’s representative for Direct Wire, Spicer’s February 16, 1987 letter purporting to change the terms of Herbert’s sales commissions, and Spicer’s March 16, 1987 letter purporting to terminate Herbert’s employment with Direct Wire. In addition, Herbert regularly received his commission checks in Virginia and discussed the terms and conditions of his employment with Direct Wire by phone from Virginia.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person's— (1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia .... (b) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a claim for relief arising from acts in this section may be asserted against him.”
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.