957 So. 2d 374 - Dumachest v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “14A. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from any one of the following activities performed by the nonresident: (1) Transacting any business in this state. (2) Contracting to supply services or things in this state. (3) Causing injury or damage by an offense or quasi offense committed through an act or omission in this state. (4) Causing injury or damage in this state by an offense or quasi offense committed through an act or omission outside of this state if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this state. La. R.S. 13:3201(B) provides: B. In addition to the provisions of Subsection A, a court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident on any basis consistent with the constitution of this state and of the Constitution of the United States.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 28 So. 3d 311 - Tsaoussidis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

2. “After a careful de novo review of the record, facts, and circumstances in this case, we find that Celadon’s contacts with the State of Louisiana are insufficient for the State of Louisiana to exercise jurisdiction over it. [[Image here]] To subject Celadon to personal jurisdiction in the State of Louisiana would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Therefore, under the minimum contacts analysis, and considering the facts in this case and applicable law, we agree with the trial court’s finding that a sufficient basis does not exist to subject Celadon to personal jurisdiction in the State of Louisiana.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 28 So. 3d 311 - Tsaoussidis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

3. ““An appellate court conducts a de novo review of the legal issue of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident by a Louisiana court. However, the trial court’s factual findings underlying the decision are reviewed under the manifest-error standard of review.” Peters v. Alpharetta Spa, L.L.C., 04-979, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/6/05), 915 So.2d 908, 910 (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 185 So. 3d 924 - Biosonix, LLC v. Olson