Patterson v. Dietze, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
764 F.2d 1145 · 1985
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Stuart v. Spademan (1985), Holt Oil & Gas Corp. v. Harvey (1986)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 1254
Relies on Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Hanson v. Denckla · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Williamson v. Tucker · Federal Election Commission v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“rested on nothing but 'the mere fortuity that [plaintiff] happen[ed] to be a resident of the forum’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 'random,' 'fortuitous,' or 'attenuated' contacts ... or of the 'unilateral activity of another party or a third person'.... Jurisdiction is proper, however, where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a 'substantial connection' with the forum State.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stuart v. Spademan“'purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.' The defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state must be such that [it] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stuart v. Spademan
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.