CSR LTD. v. Link’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
288 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 290 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably BMC Software Belgium, NV v. Marchand (2002), Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten (2005)
288 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston))
Relationships
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. · Milliken v. Meyer
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 290 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The nonresident defendant or foreign corporation must purposefully do some act or consummate some transaction in the forum state; (2) The cause of action must arise from, or be connected with such act or transaction. Even if the cause of action does not arise from a specific contact, jurisdiction may be exercised if the defendant’s contacts with Texas are continuing and systematic. (3) The assumption of jurisdiction by the forum state must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, consideration being given to the quality, nature, and extent of the activity in the forum state, the relative convenience of the parties, the benefits and protection of the laws of the forum state afforded the respective parties, and the basic equities of the situation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]ubject matter jurisdiction refers to the court's power to hear a particular type of suit,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matter of SJ · Matter of ADD“It is undisputed that CSR sold Johns-Manville a shipment of 363 tons of raw asbestos that was sent directly to Houston in August of 1957. But title to the asbestos passed to Johns-Manville in Australia and there is no evidence that CSR controlled or participated in the decision to ship the fiber to Texas. Although foreseeability is a factor to consider in a minimum contacts analysis, foreseeability alone will not support personal jurisdiction, [citation omitted] The defendant must take an action “purposefully directed toward the forum state” to be subject to the jurisdiction of its courts, [citation omitted] Assuming that CSR could have known that the raw asbestos it sold to Johns-Manville might be distribute ed in Texas, “a defendant’s awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum state does not convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act purposefully directed toward the forum State.” [citation omitted]_ There must be some indication that CSR intended to serve the Texas market.”
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.