Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 N.C. App. 299 - Tompkins v. Tompkins

98 N.C. App. 299 - Tompkins v. Tompkins’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2017

18 state decisions

100199020002010decided

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 · McKeiver v. Pennsylvania · In Re Burrus · 57 N.C. App. 650 - Anderson Chevrolet/Olds, Inc. v. Higgins

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

  1. “absent any allegations going to a nexus between such misconduct and this State, are simply insufficient to permit the reasonable inference that personal jurisdiction over defendant could properly be acquired”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “plaintiff's allegations of defendant's marital misconduct, absent any allegations going to a nexus between such misconduct and this State, are simply insufficient to permit the reasonable inference that personal jurisdiction over defendant could properly be acquired in this case.... [T]he mere fact that the marriage is still in existence at the time an action for alimony is initiated cannot of itself constitute sufficient contacts to establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant. Were it otherwise, this State could exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant solely by virtue of a plaintiff's unilateral act of moving to North Carolina prior to the termination of the marriage. This is plainly impermissible.”
    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.