McFarlane v. Esquire Magazine’s Empirical Analysis
74 F.3d 1296 · 1996
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 22 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Caribbean Broadcasting System, Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC (1998), Chaiken v. VV Publishing Corp. (1997)
20 federal appellate · 22 district · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno · Calder v. Jones
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e need not try to resolve the 'nearly hopeless muddle' of conflicting reasoning and precedent as to which statute[, § 1404 or § 1406,] properly applies [when personal jurisdiction is lacking.]”). Nevertheless,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(3) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission in the District of Columbia; [or] (4) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission outside the District of Columbia if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered, in the District of Columbia.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The writer in question [in Cantrell ] was an employee of the corporate defendant, and, although the trial court had given an instruction somewhat muddling the categories of employee and agent, no one had objected. So Cantrell presented no occasion for the Court to address the issue of when the mental state of non-employee agents may be imputed to the principal.” (citations omitted)). 31 . The FCC's”
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.