Dunkwu v. Neville’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 19 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 22 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 .... We will not reverse ... unless presented with clear evidence that the trial court abused its broad discretion. ... Unlike our review of most acts of judicial discretion, [however], our review of rulings on forum non conveniens motions includes an independent evaluation of [the pertinent] factors.... [[Image here]] It should come as no surprise, given the trial court’s broad discretion, that only rarely have we reversed rulings either way ..., even though such rulings receive closer scrutiny than most exercises of trial court discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Alder Branch Realty Ltd. Partnership

2. “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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. v. Jefferson

3. “[w]here it is shown that neither party resides in the District and the plaintiff's claim has arisen in another jurisdiction which has more substantial contacts with the cause of action, ... the trial court will have abused its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens unless that choice rests upon the sure factual foundation of an affirmative showing by the plaintiff of some reasonable justification for his institution of the action in the forum state.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Mid-Atlantic States, Inc. v. Rose