Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Ducommun Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co. (2000), 761 F. Supp. 983 - Hernandez v. Graebel Van Lines (1991)
2 district ·
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. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404
Relies on Harelson v. United States · Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc. · Heller Financial, Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co. · 265 F. Supp. 257 - Schneider v. Sears · 657 F. Supp. 1040 - Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc. v. Charles Schmitt & Co.
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district - court or division where it might have been brought.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'The availability of process to compel the testimony of important witnesses is an important consideration in transfer motions.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.