Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 F. Supp. 210 - Schultz v. McAfee

160 F. Supp. 210 - Schultz v. McAfee’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 1983
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1983

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

401958196019701980decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406

Relies on Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Olberding v. Illinois Central Railroad · Yarborough v. Yarborough · In re Josephson · Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight

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

  1. ““The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought. (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““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.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.