Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
370 federal appellate · 606 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,138 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Van Dusen v. Barrack (1964), Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown (1984)
370 federal appellate · 606 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedGoldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 22 (§ 12 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Mississippi Pub Corporation v. Murphree · Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board · Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc.
Cited together with International Shoe Co. v. Washington · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · Hanson v. Denckla
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 2,138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”
141 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... incongruous to consider, as the Court’s holding would seem to imply, that in the ‘interests of justice’ Congress sought in § 1406(a) to deal with the transfer of cases where both venue and jurisdiction are lacking in the district where the action is commenced, while neglecting to provide any comparable alleviating measures for the plaintiff who selects a district where venue is proper but where personal jurisdiction cannot be obtained. Id. at 468, 82 S.Ct. at 916 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In an ordinary diversity suit . a plaintiff may bring suit in the judicial district where he resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391 (a). But if he is unable to get personal service on the defendant in the territory defined by Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 4(f), 28 U.S.C.A., his suit will be dismissed. . . . Since this would not be “a case laying venue in the wrong division or district,” § 1406(a) would be inapplicable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.