Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
208 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 220 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Fessler v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2015), Housing Auth. v. PA CIVIL SERVICE COM'N (1999)
208 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
Relies on Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Koster v. Lumbermens Mut Casualty Co · Okkerse v. Howe · Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co. · Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hospital
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 220 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“establishing with facts on the record that the plaintiffs choice of forum was designed to harass the defendant, even at some inconvenience to the plaintiff himself. Alternatively, the defendant may meet his burden by establishing on the record that trial in the chosen forum is oppressive to him; for instance, that trial in another county would provide easier access to witnesses or other sources of proof, or to the ability to conduct a view of premises involved in the dispute. But, we stress that the defendant must show more than that the chosen forum is merely inconvenient to him.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“For the convenience of parties and witnesses the court upon petition of any party may transfer an action to the appropriate court of any other county where the action could originally have been brought.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The concerns before a federal district court in assessing whether to dismiss an action pending before it on the ground of forum inconveniens are not necessarily identical to the concerns a trial court must assess in ruling on a Rule 1006(d)(1) petition asserting forum non conveniens. In a diversity of citizenship case, a court deciding whether to exercise its jurisdiction is faced with considerations such as conflict of laws between the state where the action originated and the state in which the forum chosen by the plaintiff sits. Untangling these choice of law concerns, and other burdens on a federal district court in a diversity matter, are administrative problems for such a court to assess. On the other hand, when dealing with a petition for transfer of venue pursuant to Rule 1006(d)(1), a trial court, given the required deference to the plaintiffs choice of forum, is faced with the question of whether a transfer of venue of an action, appropriately filed with that forum, to another appropriate court in a county of this Commonwealth is necessary for the convenience of parties and witnesses. The convenience to the court is not mentioned in Rule 1006(d)(1) and is not an appropriate consideration for a Rule 1006(d)(1) inquiry.”
1 later decision 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.