Savin v. Ranier’s Empirical Analysis
898 F.2d 304 · 1990
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 14 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Robertson-Ceco Corp. (1996), Phillips Exeter Academy v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc. (1999)
13 federal appellate · 14 district · 7 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 Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Arrowsmith v. United Press International · Zartolas v. Nisenfeld
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Transacts any business within the state;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“By issuing negotiable debt instruments denominated in U.S. dollars and payable in New York and by appointing a financial agent in that city, [the defendant] 'purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the [United States]' " (citations omitted)). 25 Petra Bank urges generally that a Jordanian bank could scarcely have imagined that an aval affixed in Amman, Jordan would bring it into the courts of New York. A.I. Trade submitted Mr. Guild's uncontested testimony that it is generally understood by the forfaiting community, including avalizing banks, that disputes over trade instruments will be litigated in the forum where the notes are payable. 5 Petra Bank asserts that Mr. Guild's book Forfaiting contradicts his testimony; however, the passage cited by Petra Bank merely points out that the parties' expectations regarding the situs of any lawsuit may be thwarted by a particular court declining to exercise jurisdiction over a particular case. 26 Petra Bank also suggests that the pendency of Jordanian bankruptcy proceedings makes the exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable as a matter of due process. Once minimum contacts have been established, the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction must be determined by an evaluation of several factors including "the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Performance under the syndicate agreement was to take place in New York.... Ranier did not purposefully bargain for Savin’s performance in Connecticut of any activity concerning the syndicate. ... Ranier’s only purposeful contact with Connecticut was in obtaining financing for his share of the New York business from a Connecticut resident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.