Cody v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2011
8 district · 2 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.
Relationships
Relies on Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc. · O'Connor v. O'Connor · Knipple v. Viking Communications, Ltd.
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.
“[interpreting Connecticut’s long arm statute to reach this type of intentional tort is consistent with the statute’s remedial purpose of providing Connecticut residents with a convenient forum to seek redress for losses they suffer here as a result of a nonresident’s tortious actions. This interpretation of the statute is also consistent with Connecticut’s traditional adherence to the doctrine that tort cases are governed by the law of the place of injury. See O’Connor v. O’Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 637 , 519 A.2d 13 (1986).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The "constitutional touchstone [is] whether the defendant purposefully established 'minimum contact’ in the forum state.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474-75 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 ... (1985)(quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 ... (1980)). Contacts that are merely "random, fortuitous or attenuated” do not provide an adequate basis for personal jurisdiction. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“random, fortuitous or attenuated” do not provide an adequate basis for personal jurisdiction. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 .... 53 . The court in Tackling, 42 Conn.Supp. at 520 , 630 A.2d at 1383 , observed,”
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.