3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 9 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Holland America Line Inc v. Wärtsilä North America, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Holland America Line Inc v. Wärtsilä North America, Inc. Anchor | green | “holland america relies on the proposition that those companies sold products or sponsored web marketing for products that ended up in washington. neither is sufficient to sustain jurisdiction here.” | 3 |
| 2 | Devt. Corp. of Palm Beach v. Wbc Const. | green | “if those affidavits conflict, then it is incumbent on the trial court to hold a hearing to resolve the conflicts in the evidence and determine the jurisdictional issue.” | 3 |
| 3 | Devt. Corp. of Palm Beach v. Wbc Const. | green | “when, however, the defendant files affidavits contesting the factual assertions of jurisdiction or the existence of minimum contacts, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to file counter-affidavits supporting its position.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.