Ex Parte Phase III Const., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
32 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall , 466 U.S. 408 , 414 n. 9, 415 . . . (1984); [citations omitted]. Specific contacts, which give rise to specific jurisdiction, consist of the defendant's contacts with the forum state that are related to the cause of action. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462 , 472-75 . . . (1985). Although the related contacts need not be continuous and systematic, they must rise to such a level as to cause the defendant to anticipate being haled into court in the forum state. Id .'”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. "This purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person. Jurisdiction is proper, however, where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a substantial connection with the forum State. Thus where the defendant deliberately has engaged in significant activities within a State, or has created continuing obligations between himself and residents of the forum, he manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there, and because his activities are shielded by the benefits and protections of the forum's laws it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a defendant's one-time solicitation of business in the forum state is sufficient grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”
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.