Wiren v. Laws’s Empirical Analysis
194 F.2d 873 · 1951
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2012 · most notably La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. (1957), Norwood v. Kirkpatrick (1955)
64 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 1404
Relies on Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Collett Kitpatrick v. Texas and Pacific Railway Co · United States v. National City Lines, Inc. · Ford Motor Co. v. Ryan · Magnetic Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Dings Mfg. Co.
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every patentee not residing in the United States may file in the Patent Office a written designation stating the name and address of a person residing within the United States on whom may be served process or notice of proceedings affecting the patent or rights thereunder. If the person designated cannot be found at the address given in the last designation, or if no person has been designated, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction and summons shall be served by publication or otherwise as the court directs. The court shall have the same jurisdiction to take any action respecting the patent or rights thereunder that it would have if the patentee were personally within the jurisdiction of the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““If the combination and weight of factors requisite to given results are difficult to forecast or state, those to be considered are not difficult to name. * * * Important considerations are the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. * * * But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Caspar v. Devine“§ 1404. Change of Venue (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
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.