Tillman v. Eattock’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 1996
2 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. United States · Dubin v. United States · Mayo Clinic v. Kaiser · Taylor v. Love
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Looking to the language of § 1406, the statute is couched in terms of “laying venue in the wrong division or district.” The statute does not refer to “wrong” venue, but rather to venue laid in a “wrong division or district.” We conclude that a district is “wrong” within the meaning of § 1406 whenever there exists an “obstacle [to] * * * an expeditious and orderly adjudication” on the merits. Inability to perfect service of process on a defendant in an otherwise correct venue is such an obstacle.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“venue is 'wrong' in this district in the sense that litigation may not proceed because of absence of personal jurisdiction over the defendant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.