Internatio-Rotterdam, Inc. v. Thomsen’s Empirical Analysis
218 F.2d 514 · 1955
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman (1962), Continental Grain Company v. The Fbl-585 (1960)
32 federal appellate · 13 district ·
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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on Pennoyer v. Neff · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n · McClellan v. Carland · Collett Kitpatrick v. Texas and Pacific Railway 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) says that actions may be transferred ‘for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.’ Although Judge Friendly has pointed out, ‘the letter of the section might suggest otherwise,’ it is well established that the interest of justice is a factor to be considered on its own and an important one, and that the interest of justice may be decisive in ruling on a transfer motion even though the convenience of the parties and witnesses point[s] in a different direction.” Wright & Miller, 15 Federal Practice and Procedure § 3854, at 279 (citations omitted).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * if- * [T]he transfer falls within the letter and spirit of 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) as being a transfer ‘for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.’ If there had been a service of process, no one would contest the power of the court to make the transfer under this section. We think that the power is no less because process has not been served, when failure to make the transfer may resul' not only in inconvenience but also in denial of justice to one of the parties. * * * If service of process can be had only if the cause is transferred to another district, we see no reason why it [the court where the suit was filed] should not enter an order transferring it for that purpose; and we think that the power is granted by * * * [§§ 1404(a) and 1406(a)]. * * * If a libellant has filed a libel in one district, thinking that a vessel will be found there, and later finds that the vessel is in another district where the libel could have been filed, there is no reason why the proceedings should not be transferred to the latter instead of being dismissed, with the necessity upon libellant of starting all over again. Especially is this true, where, as here, the new proceeding would be barred by the statute of limitations.” (218 F.2d, at pp. 516-517.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Certainly such transfer is in accord with the modern standards of procedure, the purpose of which is to get away from time-consuming and justice-defeating technicalities and secure an adjudication of the rights of the parties by as direct and expeditious a route as possible. The courts of the United States comprise one great system for the administration of justice * * * [There is no reason why the proceedings should not have been transferred instead of being dismissed, with the necessity of starting all over again,] where, as here, the new proceeding would be barred by the statute of limitations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.