57 Wis. 2d 238 - Littmann v. Littmann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The general purpose of the law is discussed by Professor G. W. Foster, Jr., of the University of Wisconsin Law School, who served as the reporter for the Judicial Council in the preparation of the revisions to ch. 262, Stats. In reference to sec. 262.19, he states in the revision notes to 30 Wis. Stats. Annot. (1972 pocket parts): “This section is new. Its purpose is to permit trial of a cause in another state upon a convincing showing that trial of the cause in Wisconsin is so inconvenient that substantial injustice is likely to result. . . .” . . . . Dean Robert Leñar points out that forum non conven-iens is a necessary response to the expanding basis for in personam jurisdiction and the proliferation of “long-arm statutes,” which make it likely that courts will be faced with imported lawsuits having little or no connection with the forum. He recommends that courts have discretion to refuse to hear such transient lawsuits and to require the parties to litigate their differences in a more convenient forum. . . . The doctrinal background of forum non conveniens is discussed by Ehrenzweig and Louisell in Jurisdiction in a Nutshell (2d ed. 1968). They point out that the doctrine is invoked when a court has unquestioned jurisdiction but, for policy reasons, declines to exercise it. The text points out, at page 84, citing Goodwine v. Superior Court (1965), 63 Cal. 2d 481, 485 , 47 Cal. Rptr. 201, 203, 204 , 407 Pac. 2d 1, 4 , that: “In determining the applicability of the doctrin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 46 N.C. App. 707 - Motor Inn Management, Inc. v. Irvin-Fuller Development Co.

2. ““The transfer under sec. 1404(a) is not a transfer or a surrender of a case to another judicial system. It is but a change of venue to another courtroom of the same judicial system. Under a sec. 1404(a) transfer, the transferee court is obliged to follow the law of the state that would have been applied if there had been no change of venue. Ehrenzweig and Louisell, [Jurisdiction in a Nutshell ], p. 17 [ (2d ed. 1968) ], and Van Dusen v. Barrack (1964), 376 U.S. 612, 639 , 84 S.Ct. 805 [820], 11 L.Ed.2d 945 . Although sec. 1404(a) partakes of some of the elements of forum non conveniens, it is a statutory device distinct from that doctrine. Forum non conveniens can be applied by federal courts independently of any statutory authorization.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. G.D. Searle & Co.

3. ““(a) Amenability to personal jurisdiction in this state and in any alternative forum of the parties to the action; “(b) Convenience to the parties and witnesses of trial in this state and in any alternative forum; “(c) Differences in conflict of law rules applicable in this state and in any alternative forum; or “(d) Any other factors having substantial bearing upon the selection of a convenient, reasonable and fair place of trial.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 65 Wis. 2d 377 - U. I. P. Corp. v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp.