Robert E. Lee & Co. v. Veatch’s Empirical Analysis
301 F.2d 434 · 1961
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Ve Holding Corporation v. Johnson Gas Appliance Company (1990), Sil-Flo Corporation v. Bowen (1965)
21 federal appellate · 9 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
Relies on Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Fourco Glass Company v. Transmirra Products Corporation · Camp v. Gress · Suttle v. Reich Bros. Construction Co. · Jaftex Corporation, Third-Party v. Randolph Mills, Inc., Third-Party Gail Shawe, an Infant, by Annette Shawe and Earle K. Shawe, and Early K. Shawe v. Wendy Wilson, Inc., a Division of Lewis Frimel Co., and Jaftex Corporation
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their effect unless such intention is clearly expressed.” See Fourco Glass Company v. Transmirra Products Corporation, 353 U.S. 222 , 77 S.Ct. 787 , 1 L.Ed.2d 786 (1957), and Robert E. Lee & Company v. Veatch, 301 F.2d 434 , 96 A.L.R.2d 619 (4th Cir. 1961).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This is made clear in the Suttle case where the Court was called upon to interpret section 52 of the 1911 Judicial Code, 36 Stat. 1101 . This section provided that if two or more defendants reside in different districts of a state, suit may be brought in either district, and the Court in Suttle held that a corporate resident of Texas and a resident of the Western District of Louisiana could not over objection be jointly sued in the Eastern District of Louisiana even though the Texas corporation had qualified to do business in that district. The Court was careful to point out that, while the Texas corporation had made itself amenable to suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana, this did not make it a resident of that district for venue purposes; hence the requirements of section 52 were not met. * * * This is the setting in which Congress in 1948 enacted section 1391.”
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.