936 So. 2d 1042 - Ex Parte Bufkin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 state decisions

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(b) Basis for Out-of-State Service. An appropriate basis exists for service of process outside of this state upon a person or entity in any action in this state when the person or entity has such contacts with this state that the prosecution of the action against the person or entity in this state is not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States. . . .”

   19 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Excelsior Financial, Inc. · Smallwood v. Harrison

2. “"`"It is well established that a . . . court has the power to require a defendant to respond to discovery requests relevant to his or her motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction."' Andersen v. Sportmart, Inc. , 179 F.R.D. 236 , 241 (N.D.Ind.1998) (quoting Ellis v. Fortune Seas, Ltd. , 175 F.R.D. 308 , 311 (S.D.Ind.1997)). `However, it is also well established that a plaintiff does not enjoy an automatic right to discovery pertaining to personal jurisdiction in every case.' Id. `[T]o be permitted jurisdictional discovery, plaintiff must at least allege facts that would support a colorable claim of jurisdiction.' Schenck v. Walt Disney Co. , 742 F.Supp. 838 , 840 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (emphasis added). See also Ellis v. Fortune Seas, Ltd. , 175 F.R.D. 308 , 312 (S.D.Ind.1997); Hansen v. Neumueller GmbH , 163 F.R.D. 471 , 475 (D.Del.1995); Daval Steel Prods. v. M.V. Juraj Dalmatinac , 718 F.Supp. 159 , 162 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Rich v. KIS California, Inc. , 121 F.R.D. 254 , 259 (M.D.N.C.1988). "A request for jurisdictional discovery must offer the court `more than conjecture and surmise in support of [the] jurisdictional theory.' Crist v. Republic of Turkey , 995 F.Supp. 5 , 13 (D.D.C.1998). `[The] standard is quite low, but a plaintiff's discovery request will nevertheless be denied if it is only based upon "bare," "attenuated," or "unsupported" assertions of personal jurisdiction, or when a plaintiff's claim appears to be "clearly frivolous."' Andersen , 179 F.R.D. at 242 ."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ex Parte Reindel · Branded Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Universal Truckload Services, Inc.

3. ““ ‘Two types of contacts can form a basis for personal jurisdiction: general contacts and specific contacts. General contacts, which give rise to general personal jurisdiction, consist of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state that are unrelated to the cause of action and that are both “continuous and systematic.” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 , 414 n. 9, 415, 104 S.Ct. 1868 , 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984); [citations omitted]. Specific contacts, which give rise to specific jurisdiction, consist of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state that are related to the cause of action. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-75 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Although the related contacts need not be continuous and systematic, they must rise to such a level as to cause the defendant to anticipate being haled into court in the forum state. Id.’ “Ex parte Phase III Constr., Inc., 723 So.2d 1263, 1266 (Ala.1998) (Lyons, J., concurring in the result). Furthermore, this Court has held that, for specific in personam jurisdiction, there must exist ‘a clear, firm nexus between the acts of the defendant and the consequences complained of.’ Duke v. Young, 496 So.2d 37, 39 (Ala.1986). See also Ex parte Kamilewicz, 700 So.2d 340 , 345 n. 2 (Ala.1997).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brantley v. Bassett