Jaffe v. Julien’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2015
2 district · 2 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. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) General Rule. — The existence of any of the following relationships between a person and this Commonwealth shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the tribunals of this Commonwealth to exercise general personal jurisdiction over such person, or his personal representative in the case of an individual, and to enable such tribunals to render personal orders against such person or representative: (1) Individuals.— (i) Presence in this Commonwealth at the time when process is served. (ii) Domicile in this Commonwealth at the time when process is served. (iii) Consent, to the extent authorized by consent. (2) Corporations.— (i) Incorporation under or qualification as a foreign corporation under the laws of this Commonwealth. (ii) Consent, to the extent authorized by the consent. (iii) The carrying on of a continuous and systematic part of its general business within this Commonwealth.”
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.