Jenkins v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[TJrial court rulings on forum non conve-niens motions are entitled to receive considerable deference from this court. We will not reverse such a ruling unless presented with clear evidence that the trial court abused its broad discretion.... This deference, however, does not amount to carte blanche. Unlike our review of most acts of judicial discretion, our review of rulings on forum non conveniens includes an independent evaluation of the “private” and “public” factors enumerated in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert.... The private factors include potential obstacles to a fair trial, including the relative ease of access to proof, the availability and cost of compulsory process, the enforceability of any judgment obtained, and evidence of vexatiousness or harassment.... The public factors are those affecting the District’s own interests, including the congestion of its court dockets with foreign litigation, the imposition of jury duty on District residents for litigation in which the District has no concern, and the inappropriateness of calling on District of Columbia courts to construe the law of another jurisdiction.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dunkwu v. Neville · Ussery v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc.

2. “... When the plaintiff is a resident of this jurisdiction, the defendant who seeks dismissal faces a heavy task: “only under convincing circumstances ... should a trial court in this jurisdiction dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens a suit brought by a resident of the District of Columbia.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Al Malik v. District of Columbia · Jimmerson v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc.

3. “We have repeatedly held that trial court rulings on forum non conveniens motions are entitled to receive considerable deference from this court. We will not reverse such a ruling unless presented with clear evidence that the trial court abused its broad discretion.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dunkwu v. Neville · Eric T. v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc.