Smart v. Goord’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

cited by 17 later decisions

states following

May 2017

most recently cited

1 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Townsend v. Sain · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes · Ahrens v. Clark

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

“(1) the plaintiffs choice of forum; (2) the locus of the operative facts; (3) the convenience and relative means of the parties; (4) the convenience of witnesses; (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of witnesses; (6) the location of physical evidence, including documents; (7) the relative familiarity of the courts with the applicable law; (8) the interests of justice, including the interests of trial efficiency.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 279 F. Supp. 2d 228 - Goggins v. Alliance Capital Management, L.P. · 186 F. Supp. 2d 375 - Billing v. Commerce One, Inc.
“subject to the jurisdiction of the sending State.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Leach v. Dahm
“Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Leach v. Dahm

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.