Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. v. Hon. Sidney Sugarman, United States District Judge, Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. v. Hon. Gregory F. Noonan, United States District Judge’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
22 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Roofing & Sheet Metal Services, Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. (1982), Wyndham Associates v. Bintliff (1968)
22 federal appellate ·
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 Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n · Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland · La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. · Norwood v. Kirkpatrick
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Examining the petitioner’s contentions more closely it would appear probable that it does show greater convenience for itself in having the litigation at its home base. But certainly litigation in this district is not unusual for it; jurisdiction here with a local office in the city is so clear that it is not challenged, and the reported cases suggest even more litigation for it in our courts than elsewhere. * * * The testimony of doctors in New Orleans seems offset by the testimony of the doctors secured by the plaintiff in New York City. As to the other witnesses, apparently members of the crews of the two ships, it seems that comparatively f,ew actually claim New Orleans as home; others come from Texas, Mississippi, California, and so on, with some actually from New York. Defendant says it can produce the witnesses it needs more readily in New Orleans. But we do not believe that transfer ‘in the interest of justice,’ 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), should be determined by a litigant’s willingness to bring its witnesses to one forum and not to another. In all probability the testimony of these witnesses who sail the high seas will have to be taken by deposition anyhow, on some occasion when they happen to be available on shore leave.” 272 F.2d at pages 681-682.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“peculiarly one for the exercise of judgment by those in daily proximity to these delicate problems of trial litigation.”
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.