71 F. Supp. 2d 204 - Kirkpatrick v. Rays Group’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
4 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Thomas v. Arn · Papasan v. Allain · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he plaintiff is not required to establish that his chosen venue 'has the most substantial contacts to the dispute; rather, it is sufficient that a substantial part of the events occurred [here], even if a greater part of the events occurred elsewhere.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The place where the alleged harm occurred is also relevant for purposes of venue.”
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.