Noxell Corporation v. Firehouse No Bar-B-Que Restaurant Noxell Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
760 F.2d 312 · 1985
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Sierra Club v. Marsh (1987), Jungquist v. Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalifa Al Nahyan (1997)
22 federal appellate · 8 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. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on Leroy v. Great Western United Corp. · Peary v. Connecticut · Von Byrd v. Texas · Lamont v. Haig · Johnson Creative Arts, Inc. v. Wool Masters, 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t is absolutely clear that Congress did not intend to provide for venue at the residence of the plaintiff or to give that party an unfettered choice among a host of different districts____ In our view, ... the broadest interpretation of the language of § 1391(b) that is even arguably acceptable is that in the unusual case in which it is not clear that the claim arose in only one specific district, a plaintiff may choose between those two (or conceivably even more) districts that with approximately equal plausibility — in terms of the availability of witnesses, the accessibility of other relevant evidence, and the convenience of the defendant (but not of the plaintiff) — may be assigned as the locus of the claim.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[D]oing business” in a district for the purposes of § 1391(c) [should be] read to mean engaging in transactions there to such an extent and of such a nature that the state in which the district is located could require the foreign corporation to qualify to “do business” there.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“language, in cases of the kind brought by Noxell, must be interpreted with a view to the convenience of defendants (not plaintiffs): 10 [I]t is absolutely clear that Congress did not intend to provide for venue at the residence of the plaintiff or to give that party an unfettered choice among a host of different districts.... In our view, ... the broadest interpretation of the [”
2 later decisions 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.