Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 743 So. 2d 627 - Management Computer v. Perry Const.

743 So. 2d 627 - Management Computer v. Perry Const.’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
5
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 71 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. v. States (2008), 913 So. 2d 43 - Jenkins v. Eckerd Corp. (2005)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 71 state decisions

550199920002010decided

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

Relies on 493 So. 2d 437 - Manrique v. Fabbri · 426 So. 2d 1275 - Hu v. Crockett · Granados Quinones v. Swiss Bank Corp. · Kantner v. Boutin · Inter-Active Services v. HEATHROW MASTER

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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Whether venue is proper in a particular forum, however, is not a matter of judicial discretion. If there is no legal basis to support the plaintiff's choice of venue, the trial court must dismiss the case or transfer it to a forum that is authorized under the applicable venue statute. This kind of venue motion usually presents an issue of law or a mixed issue of law and fact. The question is not whether the trial court should transfer venue, but whether it must.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a]ny action, either by [the purchaser] or [the seller], arising out of this Agreement shall be initiated and prosecuted in the Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, and nowhere else[.]”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[A] decision interpreting a contract presents an issue of law that is reviewable by the de novo standard of review.”
    4 later decisions 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.