Bechard v. Constanzo’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In Klinghoffer the district court's exercise of jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a motion to dismiss is a more appropriate procedural vehicle for resolving personal jurisdiction issues than a motion for summary judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“clear policy to assert jurisdiction over individual defendants to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause.”
1 later decision 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.