In re Horseshoe Entertainment’s Empirical Analysis
337 F.3d 429 · 2003
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably In re Volkswagen of America, Inc. (2008), In re Volkswagen AG (2004)
12 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Scott Paper Co. v. McAllister Lighterage Line, Inc. · In re First South Savings Ass'n · V L P Cavett Company · Garner v. Wolfinbarger
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A Title VII action] may be brought [1] in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, [2] in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered, or [3] in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice, but [4] if the respondent is not found within any such district, such an action may be brought within the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Broussard v. LLC.“[W]e believe the Middle District Court erred in attributing decisive weight to the plaintiffs choice of forum. We believe that it is clear under Fifth Circuit precedent that the plaintiffs choice is clearly a factor to be considered but in and of itself it is neither conclusive nor determinative.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a.) Did the district court correctly construe and apply the relevant statutes; b.) Did the district court consider the relevant factors incident to ruling upon a motion to transfer; and c.) Did the district court abuse its discretion in deciding the motion to transfer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Volkswagen AG
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.