Reiss v. Gan S.A.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco · Frummer v. Hilton Hotels International, Inc. · McGowan v. Smith
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611 , and Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, an evidentiary hearing is hereby ordered to resolve the factual issues in dispute concerning whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Defendants. I BACKGROUND [1] This action concerns Reiss's claim that he is entitled to a fee, pursuant to an oral agreement, for having successfully interested General Electric Capital Corporation (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that it would offend due process to allow Reiss to subject multiple foreign defendants--who have never entered New York--to a suit here in order to determine if, in fact, Juliard was acting as the agent of any of the non-UIS Defendants and, if so, what was the precise scope of that authority.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If Reiss discovers facts supporting a finding that any of the dismissed or new defendants gave Juliard the authority to enter into the finder's fee agreement on its behalf, Reiss will be permitted to amend the Amended Complaint to add that party as a defendant.”
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.