Case Citator › Hanson v. Denckla

Hanson v. Denckla

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
357 U.S. 235
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
176 of 176
Citing cases (total)
176
Treatment dates
1992
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Hanson v. Denckla has been criticized. All 176 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

One confirmed criticism is listed below: a federal district court expressed doubt about separating jurisdiction from choice of law in a mass tort case.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

176 later cases cite Hanson v. Denckla; 176 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Hanson v. Denckla?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The district court questioned whether Hanson's instruction to separate jurisdiction from choice of law fits mass tort litigation.

    In re DES Cases · E.D.N.Y. · filed

    The first principle also links jurisdictional and choice-of-law inquiries. The Supreme Court has on several occasions admonished the lower courts to treat the jurisdictional and choice-of-law inquiries as distinct. See, e.g., Keeton, 465 U.S. at 778, 104 S.Ct. at 1480 ("`The issue is personal jurisdiction, not choice-of-law.'" ... [W]e do not think that ... choice-of-law concerns should complicate or distort the jurisdictional inquiry.") (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 254, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)). Nevertheless, it is hard to reconcile that directive with the ongoing vitality of the sovereignty inquiry within the constitutional law of personal jurisdiction, particularly in a mass tort case. ... Whether the state's substantive laws will apply to the litigation must therefore at least be relevant in determining whether or not a state interest exists that is sufficient to support an assertion of jurisdiction.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hanson v. Denckla and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace