Forras v. Rauf’s Empirical Analysis
812 F.3d 1102 · 2016
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Calder v. Jones · Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co. · Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia; (2) contracting to supply services in the District of Columbia; (3) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission in the District of Columbia; [or] (4) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission outside the District of Columbia if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered, in the District of Columbia....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he district court plainly should have satisfied any jurisdictional concerns before turning to a merits question[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not occupy all of the constitutionally available space”
2 later decisions 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.