25 F. Supp. 2d 593 - Babn Technologies Corp. v. Bruno’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. · M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) plaintiffs choice of forum; 2) defendant’s preference; 3) where the claim arose; 4) convenience to the parties; 5) convenience to witnesses — but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; 6) location of books and records; 7) practical considerations that could make the trial easier, more expeditious, or less expensive; 8) congestion of possible fora; and 9) the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.”
2 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.