Abramson v. Brownstein’s Empirical Analysis
897 F.2d 389 · 1990
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Watkins (1993), Garrett v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. of America (1991)
24 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 2403
Relies on Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Morgan v. United States · Samuel Moore & Co. v. Multiflex, Inc. · United States v. Whitten · Miller v. Fairchild Industries, 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If, when the cause of action accrues against a person, he is out of the State, the action may be commenced within the term herein limited, after his return to the State, and if, after the cause of action accrues, he departs from the State, the time of his absence is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We may consider an argument not raised in the district court ... if it is an issue of law not dependent on a factual record developed by the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Ohio cannot justify its statute as a means of protecting its residents from corporations who become liable for acts done within the State but later withdraw from the jurisdiction, for it is conceded by all parties that the Ohio long-arm statute would have permitted service on [defendant] throughout the period of limitations. 99”
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.