Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 824 F.2d 786 - Corporate Investment Business Brokers v. Melcher

Corporate Investment Business Brokers v. Melcher’s Empirical Analysis

824 F.2d 786 · 1987

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Robertson-Ceco Corp. (1996), Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB (1993)

29 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions

2401987199020002010decided

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. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441

Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. · 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Ninth Circuit cases give the 'purposeful interjectment' factor no weight once it is shown that the defendant purposefully directed its activities to the forum state”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]hether another reasonable forum exists becomes an issue only when the forum state is shown to be unreasonable.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the burden on the defendant, (2) existence of an alternative forum, (3) convenient and effective relief for the plaintiff, (4) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the suit, (5) efficient resolution of the controversy, (6) purposeful interjection, and (7) conflicts with sovereignty.”
    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.