Stavrides v. Zerjav’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
1 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2014
1 district · 20 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
Relies on Hanson v. Denckla · State Ex Rel. Deere and Company v. Pinnell · Heberer v. Shell Oil Co. · State Ex Rel. William Ranni Associates, Inc. v. Hartenbach · City of Cabool v. Missouri State Board of Mediation
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person or firm, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, or any corporation, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this section, thereby submit ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts: (1) The transaction of any business within this state; (2) The making of any contract within this state; ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“II. The trial court erred in denying IMCO Recycling, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over IMCO Recycling, Inc., in that: A. IMCO Recycling, Inc., did not commit one of the predicate acts enumerated in Missouri’s long-arm statute necessary to subject IMCO Recycling, Inc., to personal jurisdiction in Missouri; and B. IMCO Recycling, Inc., did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to satisfy the due process requirements of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution for the imposition of personal jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) a false, material representation; (2) the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or his ignorance of its truth; (3) the speaker’s intent that it should be acted upon by the hearer in the manner reasonably contemplated; (4) the hearer’s ignorance of the falsity of the representation; (5) the hearer’s reliance on its truth; (6) the hearer’s right to rely thereon; and (7) the hearer’s consequent and proximately caused injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bohac v. Walsh · Arnold v. Erkmann
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.