Keesling v. Winstead’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Personal jurisdiction is the court’s power to bring a person into its adjudicative process and render a valid judgment over a person.” Brockman v. Kravic, 779 N.E.2d 1250, 1254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “The existence of personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a constitutional requirement to rendering a" valid judgment, mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Anthem Ins. Cos. v. Tenet Healthcare Porp., 730 N.E.2d 1227,1237 (Ind. 2000). “Because Indiana state trial courts are courts of general jurisdiction, jurisdiction is presumed. Therefore, the plaintiff need not allege jurisdiction .in its complaint.” Id. at 1231 (footnote [o]mitted). “[0]nee the party contesting jurisdiction, usually the defendant, challenges the lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must present evidence to show that there is personal jurisdiction over the defendant. However, the defendant bears the burden of proving the láek of personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, unless the lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint.” . Id. “It is j within the trial court’s sound discretion to decide the ■jurisdictional facts.” Brockman, 779 N.E.2d at 1255 . “A trial court’s findings of jurisdictional facts are generally reviewed for clear error. Once the court has decided those facts, however, whether personal jurisdiction exists is a question of law. We review a trial court’s determination of personal jurisdiction de novo.” Id. (citations omitted)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beverly K. Oswald v. Tarek Shehadeh and Falon Vela · Harold David Walters v. Lima Elevator Company, Inc.

2. “4. Leone's briefs have caused the Court great difficulty in deciding this Motion. Leone seems more concerned with saying as many negative things as he can say about opposing counsel, rather than focusing on the issues' merits. The problem is further exacerbated by Leone's minimal compliance with Trial Rule 56(C). The Court has had to search his filings to determine what exact issues Leone is raising. [[Image here]] 19. Leone requested that the Court order Plaintiffs to pay his expenses for defending himself in this action. The Court declines to do so for the following reasons. 20. The issue was not a "clear-cut" decision. Trial courts must determine personal jurisdiction issues on a case-by-case basis. They are fact-sensitive determinations. The Court cannot find that Plaintiffs litigated this matter in bad faith or that the claim was frivolous. 21. In the alternative, the Court declines to award fees and expenses and to find Plaintiffs' counsel in contempt due to Leone's continued pattern of uncivil, personal attacks on Plaintiffs' counsel. The Court cannot condone such behavior, which does not respect this Court or fellow counsel. One who wants fees, expenses, and contempt must make this request with "clean hands."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leone v. Keesling

3. “While certainly an individual's contact with a forum exclusively as a corporate officer or agent cannot, standing alone, give rise to jurisdiction over that person in an individual capacity, [U.S.] Supreme Court jurisprudence has made clear that this means only that the contacts of each defendant must be assessed individually, not that one's corporate status automati-eally places that person beyond the court's jurisdiction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Joel Bowden, Ruby Bowden, Golden Companies, Inc., and Golden Purchasing and Staffing, Inc. v. E.J. Agnew and Golden-AGI, LLC