Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 952 P2D 636 - O'BRYAN v. McDonald

O'BRYAN v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

1 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 2022

1 district · 12 state decisions

501998200020102020decided

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 · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco

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

  1. “The question of in personam jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact that, if disputed, must be resolved before a matter can proceed. Citibank, N.A. v. Estate of Simpson, 290 N.J.Super. 519 , 676 A.2d 172, 178 (1996). The district court has considerable leeway in deciding a pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. PanAmerican Mineral Svcs., Inc. v. KLS Enviro Resources, Inc., 916 P.2d 986, 989 (Wyo.1996). The court may determine the matter on the basis of pleadings and other materials called to its attention; it may require discovery; or it may conduct an evidentiary hearing. Id. The procedural path the district court chooses to follow determines the plaintiffs burden of proof and the standard to be applied on appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “1) the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or of causing important consequences in that state, 2) the cause of action must arise from the consequences in the forum state of the defendant’s activities, and 3) the activities of the defendant or the consequences of those activities must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution operates as a limitation on the jurisdiction of state courts to enter judgments affecting rights or interests of nonresident defendants.”
    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.