Point Landing, Inc. v. Omni Capital International, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]he weight of authority, both in the cases and in the commentary,” considers statutory authorization necessary to a federal court’s service of summons. The strength of this longstanding assumption, and the network of statutory enactments and judicial decisions tied to it, argue strongly against devising common-law service of process for at least two reasons. First, since Congress concededly has the power to limit service of process, circumspection is called for in going beyond what Congress has authorized. Second, as statutes and rules have always provided the measures for service, courts are inappropriate forums for deciding whether to extend them. Legislative rule-making better ensures proper consideration of a service rule’s ramifications within the pre-existing structure and is more likely to lead to consistent application. ____A narrowly tailored service of process provision, authorizing service on an alien in a federal-question case when the alen is not amenable to service under the applcable state long-arm statute, might well serve the ends of the CEA and other federal statutes. It is not for the federal courts, however, to create such a rule as a matter of common law. That responsibility, in our view, better rests with those who propose the Federal Rules of CM Procedure and with Congress.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co. · Kohler Co. v. Titon Industries, Inc.

2. “[T]he revised rule extends the reach of federal courts to impose jurisdiction over the person of all defendant [sic] against whom federal claims are made and who can be constitutionally subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. The present territorial limits on the effectiveness of service to subject a defendant to the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant’s person are retained for all actions in which there is a state in which personal jurisdiction can be asserted consistently with state law and the Fourteenth Amendment. A new provision enables district courts to exercise jurisdiction, if permissible under the Constitution and not precluded by statute, when a federal claim is made against a defendant not subject to the jurisdiction of any single state.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Kohler Co. v. Titon Industries, Inc.

3. “Strong public policy considerations likewise militate against the idea that private remedies under other regulatory statutes should remain available even after the CFTC’s "exclusive jurisdiction” has preempted those regulatory agencies____ It is reasonable to assume that Congress, having created a regulatory agency under the same statute, intends for that agency to exercise the requisite judgment and to provide the needed uniformity. Otherwise, the key decisions influencing the scope and direction of federal regulatory policy in that field would be left to a variety of different courts responding to piecemeal advocacy of private interests.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cady v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.