Northern California District Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co.’s Empirical Analysis
69 F.3d 1034 · 1995
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Terra International, Inc. v. Mississippi Chemical Corp. (1997), United International Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. (2000)
29 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer · Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theatres, Inc. · Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co. · Nos. 83-6228, 83-7678 · In the Matter of Continental Casualty Company
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To be mandatory, a clause must contain language that clearly designates a forum as the exclusive one.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[U]nder Thermtron, we have jurisdiction to decide whether a district court has the power to do what it did in issuing a remand order, although we cannot examine whether a particular exercise of power was proper.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the word “shall” is a mandatory term, here it mandates nothing more than that the Orange County courts have jurisdiction. Thus, [the defendant] cannot object to litigation in the Orange County Superior Court on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction. Such consent to jurisdiction, however, does not mean that the same subject matter cannot be litigated in any other court. In other words, the forum selection clause in this case is permissive rather than mandatory. In comparison, in cases in which forum selection clauses have been held to require litigation in a particular court, the language of the clauses clearly required exclusive jurisdiction.... In [such] cases it is clear that the language mandates more than that a particular court has jurisdiction. The language mandates that the designated courts are the only ones which have jurisdiction. Here the language clearly falls short of designating an exclusive forum.”
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.