Koteen v. Bermuda Cablevision, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.2d 973 · 1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2024
3 federal appellate · 12 district ·
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 · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Hanson v. Denckla · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. · Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person’s— (1) transacting any business in the District of Columbia; (3) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission in the District of Columbia; (4) causing tortious injury in the District of Columbia by an act or omission outside the District of Columbia if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered, in the District of Columbia[.] (b) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a claim for relief arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is no doubt that Bermuda Cablevision purposefully established significant contacts with the District by retaining the Koteen law firm, visiting its offices in the District of Columbia on several occasions, and extensively communicating with it by telephone and by mail. These contacts are plainly enough for the exercise of jurisdiction to satisfy the requirements of due process.”
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.