I-T-E Circuit Breaker Company, a Corporation v. Honorable William H. Becker, United States District Judge’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 8 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Mere conjecture as to what action a court may judicially take is not substance on which a writ (of prohibition) may preventively be sought.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re the State of Missouri: Christopher S. Bond, Governor of the State of Missouri John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the State of Missouri Melvin F. Carnahan, Treasurer of the State of Missouri Stephen C. Bradford, Commissioner of Administration of the State of Missouri the State of Missouri Board of Education and Arthur L. Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri · State of Missouri:

2. “Whatever might be the limits of the questions entitled to consideration under § 1404(a) in a strictly single case in an individual federal court, having no relation to the administration or disposition of any other litigation pending in the federal judicial system, the situation here went beyond those bounds. The question of convenience of parties and witnesses under § 1404(a) is one which must be measured in terms of “the interest of justice” in relation to the situation which is involved and on the basis of proper judicial discretion exercised as to its whole. We think that on the facts before it and on those of which it could properly take judicial notice, the District Court was entitled to find, as it did, that the convenience of witnesses, on the national issue of alleged conspiracy and its effect on prices charged by petitioner would be served by a central location for trial, together with the possibility of reducing the number of appear- anees required by these witnesses; that the convenience of the parties would be served by reducing the cost of separate preparation of power switchgear assembly cases and by better accessibility of documents in the National Documents Depository in Chicago for use in preparation and trial of the case; and that the interest of justice would be served by the apparently planned early trial in Chicago and concentrating many of the power switchgear assembly cases in one jurisdiction and avoiding to the extent possible repetitive trials in ma”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 247 F. Supp. 950 - Atlantic City Electric Co. v. I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co.

3. “The considerations prompting the transfer and the realities on which they rest, as set out in respondent’s order, provide in our opinion such a basis for viewing convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, as being served, in respect to the disposition of petitioner’s cases and their relation to the general problem, as on their face to entitle us to regard the situation as not involving judicial arbitrariness and abuse of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 247 F. Supp. 950 - Atlantic City Electric Co. v. I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co.