Clayton v. Warlick’s Empirical Analysis
232 F.2d 699 · 1956
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Semmes Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (1970), In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983 (1987)
38 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 377
Relies on Cobbledick v. United States · Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n · Stoll v. Gottlieb · Norwood v. Kirkpatrick · Treinies v. Sunshine Mining 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Unquestionably it would be more convenient to litigants and witnesses to try the case in Chicago rather than in Charlotte, and the same law, the federal patent law, will be applied wherever it is tried. * * * We have no sympathy with shopping around for forums. As we said in Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp. v. United States Industrial Chemicals, Inc., 4 Cir., 140 F.2d 47, 49 , ‘the courts of one District or Circuit must be presumed to be as able and as well qualified to handle litigation as those in another.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The correct rule to be applied, we think, is the same as that applied in the case of other interlocutory orders, i. e., where the judge has exercised a power conferred upon him by law, mandamus may not be availed of to review the exercise of the power in the face of the restriction placed by Congress on the review of interlocutory orders. The distinction which we think applicable was that drawn by the Supreme Court in De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U. S. 212 , 217, 65 S.Ct. 1130, 1133, 89 L.Ed. 1566, where the court said: 25”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“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 result of an attempted procedural improvement is to subject parties to two lawsuits: first, prolonged litigation to determine the place where a case is to be tried; and, second, the merits of the alleged cause of action itself.”
1 later decision 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.