Etchebarne-Bourdin v. Radice’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 2 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person’s — ■ (1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia; (2) contracting to supply services in the District of Columbia; (3) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission in the District of Columbia; (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; (5) having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in the District of Columbia; (6) contracting to insure or act as surety for or on any person, property, or risk, contract, obligation, or agreement located, executed, or to be performed within the District of Columbia at the time of contracting, unless the parties otherwise provide in writing; or (7) marital or parent and child relationship in the District of Columbia ... [under certain conditions; this subsection is not relevant to this case] (b) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a claim for relief arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Etchebarne-Bourdin v. Radice

2. “the triggering event, the automobile collision, occurred in the District of Columbia, and that the first time that the doctors were negligent arguably was when they failed to advise her properly when she called them from the District.” Id. at 327 (emphasis added). We based this inference on the guidelines that appellees’ med- ical practice had in place at the time the seven-months-pregnant Ms. Etchebame-Bourdin called to say she had been in a car accident. The doctors’ office guidelines for screening telephone calls provide that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Etchebarne-Bourdin v. Radice