185 F. Supp. 809 - Clay v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1401 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1695 · 28 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Koster v. Lumbermens Mut Casualty Co · Schoen v. Mountain Producers Corp. · Rayco Manufacturing Co. v. Chicopee Manufacturing Corp. · Schoen v. Mountain Producers Corp. · Champion Spark Plug Company v. Karchmar
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A special statute provides that a derivative action by a stockholder on behalf of his corporation may be prosecuted in any district where the corporation might have sued the same defendants. Though the statute seems clear enough, some courts have found surprising difficulty in construing it. The situation is this. Stockholders, citizens and residents of State X, bring a diversity action in State Y, naming as defendants the corporation on whose behalf they are suing, which is incorporated in State Y, as well as individuals claimed to have defrauded the corporation. Some of the individual defendants reside in State Y while others are from States A, B, and C. Under the general venue statute only State X would be a proper venue, since there is no single state in which all of the defendants reside. But State X is an inconvenient venue for many purposes; it would be far better to entertain such litigation in State Y where the corporation is chartered and its records kept. The language of the special venue statute for derivative actions would seem to permit laying venue in State Y. It is a district in which the corporation could have sued the individual defendants so far as venue is concerned, since it is the district where the corporation, the only plaintiff in such a hypothetical suit, resides. Most cases have so reasoned, and have held venue proper in State Y. A few cases have rejected this reasoning. They have argued that the corporation could not have sued the individual defen”
2 later decisions 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.