Dent v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
786 F.2d 173 · 1986
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 16 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Shapiro v. UJB Financial Corp. (1992), Data Access Systems Securities Litigation Tolins Lowenfels Kahlowsky and Co (1988)
64 federal appellate · 16 district · 3 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
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. · Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Co.
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As recently as 1985, a New Jersey court confirmed the state’s significant interest in compensating its domiciliaries. Pine v. Eli Lilly & Co., 201 N.J.Super. 186 , 492 A.2d 1079 (A.D.1985). In Pine the plaintiff, a New Jersey domiciliary, sued the manufacturer of DES, a corporation doing business in New Jersey, for injuries he received in útero while his mother was administered the drug. The plaintiff was born in New York and resided there for most of his life. He established a New Jersey domicile only after he had discovered that his potential claim was time barred under New York law. Id. at 190, 492 A.2d at 1082 . Disregarding its policy of discouraging forum shopping, the court applied the New Jersey statute of limitations, finding New Jersey’s interest in favor of compensating its domiciliaries “paramount.” Id. at 193, 492 A.2d at 1083 . The court stated: “In most instances, our courts, as well as the Third Circuit, have favored applying New Jersey law in tort actions when the plaintiff is domiciled in New Jersey.” 7”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is clear that New Jersey’s strong interest in protecting compensation rights of its domiciliaries is implicated here. Schum, unlike the plaintiff in He-avner, is a domiciliary of New Jersey. Thus New Jersey — which had no interest in protecting any compensation rights of the plaintiff in Heavner — has a strong interest in compensating Schum as a domiciliary plaintiff. The New Jersey cases have almost uniformly applied New Jersey law in instances in which the state had a significant compensation interest, viz., where the plaintiff was a New Jersey domiciliary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We glean from Heavner that the underlying analysis of whether New Jersey should apply its limitations statute or that of the foreign state is essentially akin to the “governmental interest” test in resolving choice of substantive law issues____ This approach requires a two-step analysis in resolving the choice of law issue: a determination first of the governmental policies, as expressed by the laws of each related jurisdiction, and second of the factual contacts the controversy and parties have with each related jurisdiction.”
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.