Barrack v. Van Dusen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We think that the holding in Hoffman v. Blaski, supra, compels the conclusion that respondent [the district judge] was without power to transfer these actions. The import of that decision is that unless the plaintiff had an unqualified right to bring suit in the transferee forum at the time he filed his original complaint, transfer to that district is not authorized by § 1404(a). * * * Nor can the district court’s statement that these actions involve the legal fiction of the appointment of a personal representative be used as a basis for distinguishing them from Hoffman v. Blaski, supra. Certainly the requirement of capacity to sue is no more a legal fiction than is the necessity for having proper venue.” 309 F.2d at 957 . [Court’s emphasis.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 221 F. Supp. 820 - Goranson v. Capital Airlines, Inc. · 220 F. Supp. 140 - Thompson v. Capital Airlines, Inc.

2. ““For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pan American Bank of Miami v. Gully · 227 F. Supp. 950 - Majewski v. New York Central Railroad Company

3. ““The argument that petitioners could have brought these suits in Massachusetts, irrespective of the waiver of intervenors, by obtaining ancillary appointment misses the. mark, for it ignores the fact that, such appointment is discretionary with the probate court. Mass.Ann.. Laws c. 193, § 10. Of course, it is. quite likely that most of these petitioners would have been so appointed. That, however, is immaterial,, for the fact remains that here,, as in, Hoffman, petitioners did not have an independent right to maintain suit, in Massachusetts. “ * * * Finally, we must accept. § 1404(a) as it has been construed, by the Supreme Court in Hoffman v„ Blaski, supra, i. e., that it permits, transfer only if the plaintiff at the' time of the commencement of the action had an independent right to institute suit in the transferee district.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 221 F. Supp. 820 - Goranson v. Capital Airlines, Inc.