D & D Fuller CATV Construction, Inc. v. Pace’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
9 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Marshak v. Marshak (1993), 204 W. Va. 95 - Kessel v. Leavitt (1998)
9 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Calder v. Jones · Lloyd v. Loeffler
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Frequently, the commission of a tort, in itself, creates a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the state so as to satisfy the due process inquiry. In such cases there is no need to further engage in a minimum contacts analysis, because the defendant is so connected with the forum state that traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not offended by the state's exercise of jurisdiction.... In addition, a defendant can reasonably foresee being haled into court to answer for his tortious conduct. In other cases, even if an injury is sustained in the forum state, the defendant's tortious acts may be so remote as to require a closer nexus between the defendant and the state." (emphasis supplied)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The United States Supreme Court [in Calder ] has addressed the issue of what contacts are necessary to satisfy due process in the context of an intentional tort. [T]he Court approved an "effects" test and held that where a defendant's intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions, taken outside the forum, are expressly directed at causing a harmful effect within the forum state, a sufficient nexus exists between the defendant and the state so as to satisfy due process. [Thus], the [nonresident] defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court to answer for his intentionally tortious actions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for purposes of the long-arm statute, tortious conduct in a foreign state which causes injury in Colorado may be deemed to be an act committed in Colorado so as to satisfy the long-arm statute.”
2 later decisions 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.