Crane v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis
814 F.2d 758 · 1987
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 68 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably GTE New Media Services Inc. v. BellSouth Corp. (2000), First Chicago International v. United Exchange Co. (1988)
34 federal appellate · 68 district · 13 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. · Calder v. Jones · Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
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 133 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; (4) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission outside the District of Columbia if the defendant 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; [or] (5) having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in the District of Columbia[.]”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“serve to filter out cases in which the inforum impact is an isolated event and the defendant otherwise has no, or scant, affiliations with the forum.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person ... as to a claim for relief arising from the person’s— (1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia;”
3 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.