AroChem International, Inc. v. Buirkle’s Empirical Analysis
968 F.2d 266 · 1992
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Jackson v. BellSouth Telecommunications (2004), Curley v. AMR Corp. (1998)
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 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 Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Babcock v. Jackson · United States v. Yellow Cab Co. · Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. United States · Bagley v. IBP, Inc.
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the significant contacts [in a defamation case] are, almost exclusively, the parties' domiciles and the locus of the tort.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The judicial-proceeding privilege would lose its force if weight were given to the domicile of the parties or the place of injury in determining choice of law. Were the law of some other state to be applied in the case of California’s judicial-proceeding privilege, for example, the incentive of parties to California litigation to rely upon that privilege would be gravely undermined because they cannot ensure that ensuing tort litigation will occur in California. To the contrary, they can be sure that, if the law of, say, the forum state, were to be applied, plaintiffs would always bring the actions in a forum with a narrow privilege. We must, therefore, apply the law of the locus state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first and fourth causes of action, the wrongful death of Christopher and plaintiffs own psychological and other injuries respectively, allege injuries inflicted in New Jersey. New York’s only interest in these claims are as the forum state, and as the jurisdiction where the tortious conduct underlying plaintiffs claims, the negligent assignment and failure to dismiss Coakeley occurred. Standing alone, these interests are insufficient to warrant application of New York law, at least when the relevant issue is a loss-distribution rule, rather than one regulating conduct, (citations omitted).”
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.