9 Utah 2d 250 - Conn v. Whitmore’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1998 · most notably Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Construction Co., Inc (1980), Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Construction Co. (1979)
10 federal appellate · 36 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Milliken v. Meyer · Pennoyer v. Neff · Williams v. State of North Carolina
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the transaction of any business within the state”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a)The transaction of any business within this state which is hereby defined as the doing of any act for the purpose of realizing pecuniary benefit or accomplishing or attempting to accomplish, transact or enhance the business purpose •or objective or any part thereof of such person, firm, company, association or corporation ; (b) The commission of a tortious act within this state; (c) The ownership, use or possession of any real property situate within this state; (d) Contracting to insure any person, property or risk located within this state at the time of contracting; * * *. [1961, ch. 153, § 1, p. 224.] “5-515. Service of process on persons enumerated in preceding section — Personal service outside state. — Service of process upon any such person, firm, company, association or corporation who is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, as provided herein, may be made by personally serving the summons upon the defendant outside the state with the same force and effect as though summons had been personally served within this state. [1961, eh. 153, § 2, p. 224.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Even under the liberalized view the foregoing cases represent as to the prerequisities to holding one subject to personal jurisdiction of the courts of a foreign state, this requirement remains: there must be some substantial activity which correlates with a purpose to engage in a course of business or some continuity of activity in the state so that deeming the defendant to be present therein is founded upon a realistic basis and is not a mere fiction. That this is so and that a single act or transaction does not suffice unless it fits into the above pattern is well established. ( 342 P.2d at 874 )”
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.