Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

229 F.2d 368

Docket No. 12774.

Fannin v. Jones

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Jan. 13, 1956.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1956-01-13

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A court should not under § 1404(a) look to docket conditions in order simply to serve the court’s own convenience. Cf. Keller-Dorian Colorfilm Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1949, 88 F.Supp. 863, 866 ; see also Dairy Industries Supply Ass’n v. LaBuy, 7 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 554, 558 . A prompt trial, however, is not without relevance to the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. Cf. United States v. Scott & Williams, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1950, 88 F.Supp. 531, 535 . In a wrongful death case promptness of determination is clearly in the interest of justice. The district court has a broad discretion under § 1404(a), Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 1955, 349 U.S. 29 , 75 S.Ct. 544 , 99 L.Ed. 789 .”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including AMF, INC. v. Computer Automation, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 789 - Galonis v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1404

Relies on Norwood v. Kirkpatrick · Dairy Industries Supply Ass'n v. La Buy · United States v. Scott & Williams, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1956-01-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably A. Olinick & Sons v. Dempster Bros. (1966), Dupre v. Spanier Marine Corp. (1993)

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

10019561960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*369Metzenbaum, Schwartz & Disbro, Cleveland, Ohio, Joseph I. Williams, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant or petitioner.

¶2Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and STEWART, Circuit Judge.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4, Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to vacate his order entered under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a), transferring from the Eastern to the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio petitioner’s suit against the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. In granting the motion for transfer, the district judge gave consideration to the fact that an early trial would be impossible in the Eastern Division because of an overcrowded docket and to the prospect of an early trial in the Western Division. The transfer is claimed to be improper solely because the court thus gave weight to the relative docket conditions in the two Divisions. A court should not under § 1404 (a) look to docket conditions in order simply to serve the court’s own convenience. Cf. Keller-Dorian Colorfilm Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1949, 88 F.Supp. 863, 866; see also Dairy Industries Supply Ass’n v. LaBuy, 7 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 554, 558. A prompt trial, however, is not without relevance to the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice *370Cf. United States v. Scott & Williams, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1950, 88 F.Supp. 531, 535. In a wrongful death case promptness of determination is clearly in the interest of justice. The district court has a broad discretion under § 1404(a), Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 1955, 349 U.S. 29, 75 S.Ct. 544, 99 L.Ed. 789. The limits of that discretion were not exceeded here.

¶5The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

/229/f2d/368 · .json · Public domain