Puhlman v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 2021
6 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. § 1738A
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Hanson v. Denckla · Calder v. Jones · Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.... [I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails [him]self of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.... ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a decision relating to child support or any other monetary obligation of any person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. McCaffery v. Green
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.