Pittock v. Otis Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

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

1. “The district court’s authority to transfer venue is based on two statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). Section 1404(a) permits a change of venue for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. However, a transfer under section 1404(a) may not be granted when the district court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Section 1406(a) allows a district court to grant a change of venue when venue was improper in the original forum. Specifically, section 1406(a) provides that a district court with a case “laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” Unlike section 1404(a), however, section 1406(a) does not require that the district court have personal jurisdiction over the defendants before transferring the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 104 F. Supp. 2d 758 - Diebold, Inc. v. Firstcard Financial Services, Inc. · 409 F. Supp. 2d 897 - Costaras v. NBC Universal, Inc.

2. “(A) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person’s: (1) transacting any business in this state; (2) contracting to supply services or goods in this state; (3) causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this state; (4) causing tortious injury by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly does or solicits business ... in this state; (5) causing injury in this state to any person by breach of warranty expressly or impliedly made in the sale of goods outside this state ...; (6) causing tortious injury in this state to any person by an act outside this state committed with the purpose of injuring persons ...; (7) causing tortious injury to any person by a criminal act, any element of which takes place in this state ... ; (8) having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in this state; (9) contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting. (B) For purposes of this section, a person who enters into an agreement, as a principal, with a sales representative for the solicitation of orders in this state is transacting business in this state. (C) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a cause of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him. O.R.C. 2307.382; see also, Pittock v. Otis Elevator Co., 8 F.3d 325 , 327 (1994).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cruz v. Kentucky Action Park, Inc.

3. “[T]he mere designation of an agent in compliance with the service-of-process statute does not automatically eliminate the requirement of minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 632 F. Supp. 2d 700 - Avery Dennison Corp. v. Alien Technology Corp.