No. 99-55633’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
34 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 221 F. Supp. 2d 1116 - Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC. (2002), 109 Cal. App. 4th 583 - Net2Phone, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003)
34 district · 2 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
Relies on M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. · Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence · Velasquez v. United States · Taylor v. United States
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiffs choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiffs cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]or 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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 20040.5 expresses a strong public policy of the State of California to protect California franchises from the expense, inconvenience, and possible prejudice of litigating in a non-California venue. A provision, therefore, that requires a California franchisee to resolve claims related to the franchise agreement in a non-California court directly contravenes this strong public policy and is unenforceable ...”
3 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.