Sea Lift, Inc. v. Refinadora Costarricense de Petroleo’s Empirical Analysis
792 F.2d 989 · 1986
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Productions, Inc. (1990), Mellon Bank (East) Psfs, National Association v. Kenneth v. Farino Leslie Trinin Robert Levitas Eileen Michaels (1992)
27 federal appellate · 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
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Hanson v. Denckla · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · McGee v. International Life Insurance
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] meeting in the forum state ... involves 'significant negotiations of important terms'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Corrected Opinion Williams Electric Company, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., and John Geis, J v. Clark Electric Company, Inc., and William Warren Harmon, Defendants- Williams Electric Company, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., J v. Clark Electric Company, Inc., William Warren Harmon, John Geis · Williams Electric Co. v. Honeywell, Inc.“continuous and systematic general business contacts”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Corrected Opinion Williams Electric Company, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., and John Geis, J v. Clark Electric Company, Inc., and William Warren Harmon, Defendants- Williams Electric Company, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., J v. Clark Electric Company, Inc., William Warren Harmon, John Geis · Achievers Unlimited, Inc. v. Nutri Herb“If the case does so arise and relate, we must then consider “ ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation’ to determine whether the exer cise of jurisdiction [is] consistent with due process.” Borg-Warner [Acceptance Corp. v. Lovett & Tharpe, Inc.], 786 F.2d [1055,] 1057 [ (11th Cir.1986) ], quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 , 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2580 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). This relationship will not support the exercise of in personam jurisdiction unless it includes “some act by which the defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Elkhart Engineering Corp. v. Dornier Werke, 343 F.2d 861, 866 (5th Cir.1965), quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). [See also Asahi Metal, 480 U.S. 102 , 107 S.Ct. at 1026-27 ], “Considerations such as the quality, nature, and extent of the activity in the forum, the foreseeability of consequences within the forum from activities outside it ... relate to whether it can be said that the defendant’s actions constitute ‘purposeful availment.’” Prejean v. Sonatrach, Inc., 652 F.2d 1260, 1268 (5th Cir.1981).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.