All States Freight, Inc. v. Modarelli’s Empirical Analysis
196 F.2d 1010 · 1952
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 26 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2013 · most notably Norwood v. Kirkpatrick (1955), Coastal Steel Corporation v. Tilghman Wheelabrator Ltd Wheelabrator-Frye Inc (1983)
81 federal appellate · 26 district · 7 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Koster v. Lumbermens Mut Casualty Co · 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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The second danger which threatens the usefulness of Section 1404 (a) comes from the appellate courts. It is settled in this Circuit and elsewhere that an order either making a transfer or refusing a transfer is not appealable. Now the effort is being made both in this court and elsewhere to substitute for appeal a review by mandamus whenever the losing party on a motion to transfer wants an advance review of the ruling on this point. “We think that this practice will defeat the object of the statute. Instead of making the business of the courts easier, quicker and less expensive, we now have the merits of the litigation postponed while appellate courts review the question where a case may be tried. “Every litigant against whom the transfer issue is decided naturally thinks the judge was wrong. It is likely that in some cases an appellate court would think so, too. But the risk of a party being injured either by the granting or refusal of a transfer order is, we think, much less than the certainty of harm through delay and additional expense if these orders are to be subjected to interlocutory review by mandamus. ‘*We do not propose to grant such review where the judge in the district court has considered the interests stipulated in the statute and decided thereon. * * * We realize that the view we express is not the one which some of our judicial brethren are following with regard to this statute. But we cannot escape the conclusion that it will be highly unfortunate if the ”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““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.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The statute [§ 1404(a)] limits the privilege of the plaintiff to have his lawsuit tried in the forum of his choosing if he can there get jurisdiction over the defendant. The purpose of the limitation is clearly to make the inevitably uncomfortable (for the litigant) judicial process cheaper and more convenient and, if possible, more prompt.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
6 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.