Hugel v. McNell’s Empirical Analysis
886 F.2d 1 · 1989
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 28 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto (1994), Boit v. Gar-Tec Products, Inc. (1992)
14 federal appellate · 28 district · 4 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 Conley v. Gibson · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he knowledge that the major impact of the injury would be felt in the forum State constitutes a purposeful contact or substantial connection whereby the intentional tortfeasor could reasonably expect to be haled into the forum State's courts to defend his actions”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he complaint sufficiently alleges that the McNeils actually directed their actions at a New Hampshire resident. The McNeils knew that the release of the allegedly false information would have a devastating impact on Hugel, and it can be fairly inferred that they intended the brunt of the injury to be felt in New Hampshire where Hugel had an established reputation as a businessman and public servant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We do not believe that the Supreme Court, in Calder , was saying that any plaintiff may hale any defendant into court in the plaintiff's home state, where the defendant has no contacts, merely by asserting that the defendant has committed an intentional tort against the plaintiff.... [T]he so-called `effects' test is merely another way of assessing the defendant's relevant contacts with the forum State. The defendant must still `purposefully avail' [himself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”
1 later decision 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.