Van Howell v. Tanner’s Empirical Analysis
650 F.2d 610 · 1981
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Roofing & Sheet Metal Services, Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. (1982), Pfannstiel v. City of Marion (1990)
32 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Monroe v. Pape · Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Pierson v. Ray · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc.
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana has personal jurisdiction over both Defendants; (b) this Court has already transferred the action as against Biomet, Inc. to the Northern District of Indiana, and therefore a transfer of the action as against Airwarsaw would ensure the entire action could be brought and resolved in one forum; (c) all of the witnesses for Airwarsaw reside and are employed in Indiana; (d) all documents maintained by Airwar-saw regarding the transactions sued on in this case are located and maintained in Indiana; (e) access to sources of proof would be facilitated if the action was in Indiana; (f) virtually all of the events which give rise to Plaintiffs claim arose out of dealing in Indiana; (g) Indiana law applies to this transaction and it is important for the home state of the law governing the transaction to apply it; (h) the property at issue (the Citation II) is located and maintained in Indiana; and (i) the costs, expenses and burdens of obtaining the attendance of witnesses will be reduced if the action is transferred to the Northern District of Indiana and; (j) Defendant Airwarsaw submits that the same factors compelling the Court’s ruling on co-defendant Biomet’s Motion to Transfer Venue apply equally here and thus weigh in favor of Airwarsaw in transferring this action to the same district court. (Dkt. 22; Dkt. 28; Dkt. 29).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once probable cause has been established, the legality of the arrest is not affected by ...a subsequent dismissal or acquittal of the charges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Swanson v. Scott“which defined a 10-day period within which all materials must be filed in order to receive consideration from the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moore v. Florida
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.