Wahl v. Foreman’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2017
1 district · 1 state decisions
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
Relies on Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Intercontinental Planning, Ltd. v. Daystrom Inc. · Liquid Carriers Corp. v. American Marine Corp. · 374 F. Supp. 886 - Honda Associates, Inc. v. Nozawa Trading, Inc. · Galgay v. Bulletin Co.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendant urges that the action be transferred to the Southern District of Texas based on inconvenience to himself. 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). While it may well be a burden for a man with defendant’s busy schedule to litigate an action within this district, the uncontroverted fact remains that he chose the district as a convenient location to transact business with the plaintiffs. He cannot therefore be heard to say that, in the interest of justice, venue should be changed. [Wahl v. Foreman, 398 F.Supp. 526 (S.D.N.Y.1975)]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gordon v. Hohmann
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.