72 N.C. App. 585 - Marion v. Long’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably 124 N.C. App. 332 - Starco, Inc. v. AMG Bonding & Insurance Services, Inc. (1996), 131 N.C. App. 231 - Inspirational Network, Inc. v. Combs (1998)
3 federal appellate · 62 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
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp. · 46 N.C. App. 527 - Phoenix America Corp. v. Brissey
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) quantity of the contacts; (2) nature and quality of the contacts; (3) source and connection of the cause of action to the contacts; (4) interest of the forum state; and (5) convenience.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“(4) Local Injury; Foreign Act. — In any action for wrongful death occurring within this State or in any action claiming injury to person or property within this State arising out of an act or omission outside this State by the defendant, provided in addition that at or about the time of the injury either: b. Products, materials or thing processed, serviced or manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed, within this State in the ordinary course of trade.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To determine if foreign defendants may be subjected to in personam jurisdiction in this state, we apply a two-pronged test. First, we determine whether North Carolina jurisdictional statutes allow our courts to entertain the action. Second, we determine whether our courts can constitutionally exercise such jurisdiction consistent with due process of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.