Stauffacher v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
969 F.2d 455 · 1992
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Dale S. Rice v. Nova Biomedical Corporation and Robert Christopher (1995), Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith (2004)
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 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 · Hanson v. Denckla · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Bourjaily v. United States
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The cases are unanimous that a bare allegation of a conspiracy between the defendant and a person within the personal jurisdiction of the court is not enough.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“.... [The defendant] did not solicit, create, nurture, or maintain, whether through personal contacts or long-distance communications, a continuing business relationship with anyone in the state. Had there been such a relationship, then even if no employee or other agent of the credit union had ever set foot in Wisconsin the credit union would have established a sufficient “presence” there to warrant an inference (tenuous as it might seem to be) that First Heritage was benefitting from services provided by the state and could therefore be required, as a quid pro quo, to submit to the jurisdiction of the state’s courts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It would be more than awkward to postpone the jurisdictional issue to the merits; it would dissolve the issue. If the plaintiff won on the merits, the jurisdictional issue would be automatically resolved in his favor, while if he lost the defendant would waive the defense of personal jurisdiction and take the judgment for its preclusive value in subsequent suits. But to resolve the jurisdictional issue in advance would require... an evidentiary hearing as extensive as, and in fact duplicative of, the trial on the meritseither that or permit a nonresident to be dragged into court on mere allegations. [81]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ashby v. State
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.