Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 696 FSUPP 636 - Stephens v. Entre Computer Centers, Inc.

Stephens v. Entre Computer Centers, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2016

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

1001988199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1404

Relies on M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. · Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. · Coastal Steel Corp. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “that single document connects all the plaintiffs with all the defendants.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In Snider , there were six agreements and multiple defendants, and the forum selection clause was contained in but one of the agreements with one of the defendants. The Snider court found the clause unenforceable based on equity and the efficient administration of justice. 659 F.Supp. at 1257-58 . On reconsideration, the court implied that it might have ruled otherwise had the clause been contained in one central document.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The parties agree that any action brought either party in any court, whether federal or state, shall be brought within the Commonwealth of Virginia and do hereby waive all question of personal jurisdiction or venue for the purposes of carrying out this provision.”
    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.