Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 740 P.2d 1269 - Carlson v. Bos

Carlson v. Bos’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2020

20 state decisions

11019871990200020102020decided

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 · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Hanson v. Denckla · Milliken v. Meyer · Shaffer v. Heitner

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

  1. “"The diligence to be pursued and shown ... is that which is reasonable under the circumstances and not all possible diligence which may be conceived. Nor is it that diligence which stops just short of the place where if it were continued might reasonably be expected to uncover an address ... of the person on whom service is sought... . Due diligence must be tailored to fit the circumstances of each case. It is that diligence which is appropriate to accomplish the end sought and which is reasonably calculated to do so."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The second diligence requirement is one we imply to avoid constitutional infirmities in section 41-12-8.”). The Utah Supreme Court stated that because of the diligence requirement it had incorporated into the motorist service statute, a”
    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.