Burger King Corporation v. Macshara’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In contrast with their typical ease in reconciling jurisdiction over non-resident sellers, courts have encountered particular difficulties in applying Hanson’s requirement of purposeful activity to suits against non-resident buyers. In-Flight Devices Corp. v. Van Dusen Air, Inc., 466 F.2d 220, 232-33 (6th Cir.1972). In part this reflects a judgment that the activity of incurring a debt with an instate seller, however purposeful, is not an activity which occurs in the seller’s state. See Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. [v. Mountain State Const. Co., Inc.] 597 F.2d [596] at 601-04 [7th Cir.1979]. The geographical location of activities such as debt incurrence cannot provide a workable basis for determining whether jurisdiction is fair in any given circumstance. ... ... We therefore agree with other jurists and commentators who have noted the unfairness of asserting jurisdiction over out-of-state customers to collect payments due on modest personal purchases. Baxter v. Mouzavires, 455 U.S. at 1006, 102 S.Ct. at 1643 [71 L.Ed.2d at 875 (1982)]; In-Flight Devices Corp., 466 F.2d at 232 ; Currie, supra, at 574-77. C f. Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 329 , 100 S.Ct. 571, 577-78 , 62 L.Ed.2d 516 (1980) (insured not expected to defend suit in every state where insurer does business).... Our concern for adequate notice and fairness to buyers does not of course necessitate a broad rule immunizing purchasers generally from suit in the seller’s home state. Where commercial parties of comparab”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 464 So. 2d 701 - Rosenberg v. Coqui, Inc. · 593 F. Supp. 1559 - Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Ft. Lauderdale-Palm Beach, Inc. v. Buffalo Rock Co.

2. “[b]reach[es] a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · 594 F. Supp. 1500 - Continental Ill. Nat. B. & T. v. Consult. Eng. G.

3. “Due process restrictions “are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective states.” Hanson vs. Denckla, 357 U.S. at 251 , 78 S.Ct. at 1238 . Hence, the minimum contacts measure is not a question of “a little more or a little less. Whether due process is satisfied must depend rather upon the quality and nature of the activity in relation to” the laws of the forum state. International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319 , 66 S.Ct. at 160 . A state cannot justifiably assert jurisdiction over an individual with whom it has no constitutionally cognizable contacts or ties. Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. [286] at 294, 100 S.Ct. [559] at 565-66 [62 L.Ed.2d 490 ]. The Hanson requirement of purposeful activity within the forum state reflects two contrasting considerations. Particularly in the commercial context, fairness dictates that a defendant who derives profits from deliberate contacts within the forum state should be responsible for the costs such activities incur. On the other hand, due process abhors the unfair surprise that results when a party is haled into court in a state with which he lacks deliberate connections. Burger King Corp. vs. MacShara, 724 F.2d at 1509 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Bertke v. Cartledge