Mitchell v. Gundlach’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “« * * * on j^g facts it [the Josephson opinion] should be regarded as really influenced or controlled by the principle of waiver by the defendants.” 136 F.Supp. 174, 175 . “It is to be noted that the defendant corporation was subject to personal service in New Mexico and particularly also that the individual defendants expressly consented to be sued there. It is also to be noted, as was pointed out in the opinion, that the venue of a stockholder’s derivative action is provided for by 28 U.S.C.A., Sec. 1401 * * *.’» 136 F.Supp. 175 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ragsdale v. Price · Gilpin v. Wilson

2. ““It is horn book law that transitory actions must begin with personal service upon the defendant and that, when they do not, the judgment is a nullity. It is of course true that Congress might make the process of a district court run throughout the Union, as indeed it has done in suits by the United States under the Antitrust Acts. But, unless otherwise .specifically provided, the initial process in a transitory action has .always been limited territorially; and Rule 4(f) now confines it to the boundaries of the state in which the action is pending. If, however, the plaintiff be right, § 1404(a) has made it possible in ‘diversity’ cases for a plaintiff to dispense with service upon the defendant in the district where the case is to be tried; for by serving him in an action in the defendant’s own district, the plaintiff may fetch him 2,000 to 3,000 miles away for trial in a district where he does not live and where he has never set foot. Considering that, this is contrary to the substantially uniform practice of Congress, and we ought to demand a plain expression of intent to so revolutionary a change. Not only is there no such expression, but analysis of the results of such an interpretation make it to the last degree improbable that this could have been the purpose.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gilpin v. Wilson

3. ““(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 160 F. Supp. 210 - Schultz v. McAfee