Nascone v. Spudnuts, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
735 F.2d 763 · 1984
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. (1988), Pacor Inc. v. Higgins (1984)
43 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 28 U.S.C. § 2105
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Van Dusen v. Barrack · Scherk v. Alberto-Culver 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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]his franchise shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Utah, and venue for any proceeding relating to the provisions hereof shall be Salt Lake County, State of Utah.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“For many years, this court — and virtually every other court — has held that such orders transferring venue are not appealable .... [Wjhere the district court is essentially ruling on a motion to transfer venue within the federal system ... “in the interests of justice” ... the order issued by the district court is not a collaterally final order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Marcelus v. Jordan“[O]rders granting or denying motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1406(a) are not immediately appealable as collaterally final orders. It is irrelevant for these purposes whether the motion to transfer is based on a forum selection clause, the convenience of witnesses, or other factors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.