Gibbons v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. “"In International Shoe , the United States Supreme Court stated that to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction when that person is not present within the territory of the forum, due process requires the defendant to have `certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' 326 U.S. at 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154 ; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , 444 U.S. 286 , 292 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). . . . The `constitutional touchstone' of this analysis is whether a defendant `purposely avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities' within the forum state. Hanson v. Denckla , 357 U.S. 235 , 253 , 78 S.Ct 1228 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), thereby invoking `the benefits and protections of the laws of that state.' International Shoe , 326 U.S. at 319 , 66 S.Ct. 154 ; Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462 , 474 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). . . . "Florida courts have recognized that the `single most important factor to consider' in the analysis of due process under International Shoe is whether the defendant's conduct with respect to the forum state is such that the defendant `should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.' Silver v. Levinson , 648 So.2d 240 , 242-43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 732 So. 2d 1019 - Ex Parte Kenco Signs & Awning Div., Inc.

2. ““ ‘In International Shoe [Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) ], the United States Supreme Court stated that to subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction when that person is not present within the territory of the forum, due process requires the defendant to have “certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” 326 U.S. at 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154 ; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980).... The “constitutional touchstone” of this analysis is whether a defendant “purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities” within the forum state, Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), thereby invoking “the benefits and protections of the laws of that state.” International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319 , 66 S.Ct. 154 ; Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985).’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Golden v. Golden

3. “Generally speaking, Florida’s long-arm statutes are of a class that requires more activities or contacts to allow service of process than are currently required by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.”). 108 . Reply Mem. at 8 (citing to Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.2002) (stating that specific jurisdiction may be obtained over a defendant under the Calder”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc.