Mayo Clinic v. Kaiser’s Empirical Analysis
383 F.2d 653 · 1967
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works (1986), Corke v. Sameiet M. S. Song (1978)
40 federal appellate · 14 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 15 U.S.C. § 22 (§ 12 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1396 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman · First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. United Air Lines, Inc. · Dubin v. United States · Mabel Groninger v. Merrill E. Davison
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * Certainly a party who has been totally wrong in selecting the forum would have no greater right of transfer under § 1406(a) than a party who has selected a forum which is wrong only because service of process cannot be obtained. * * *”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. Love · Tillman v. Eattock““Nothing in that language indicates that the operation of the section was intended to be limited to actions in which the transferring court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants. And we cannot agree that such a restrictive interpretation can be supported by its legislative history — either that relied upon by the Court of Appeals or any other that has been brought to our attention. * * * * * * “The language of § 1406(a) is amply broad enough to authorize the transfer of cases, however wrong the plaintiff may have been in filing his case as to venue, whether the court in which it was filed had personal jurisdiction over the defendants or not. The section is thus in accord with the general purpose which has prompted many of the procedural changes of the past few years — that of removing whatever obstacles may impede an expeditious and orderly adjudication of cases and controversies on their merits. When a lawsuit is filed, that filing shows a desire on the part of the plaintiff to begin his case and thereby toll whatever statutes of limitation would otherwise apply. The filing itself shows the proper diligence on the part of the plaintiff which such statutes of limitation were intended to insure. If by reason of the uncertainties of proper venue a mistake is made, Congress, by the enactment of § 1406(a), recognized that ‘the interest of justice’ may require that the complaint not be dismissed but rather that it be transferred in order that the plaintiff not be penalized”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.