Deb v. Sirva, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
832 F.3d 800 · 2016
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1404
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno · Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] the relative ease of access to sources of proof; [2] availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and [3] the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; [4] possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and [5] all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Stated more simply, a district court may dismiss a case on forum non conveniens grounds when it determines that there are 'strong reasons for believing it should be litigated in the courts of another, normally a foreign, jurisdiction.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he exceptional nature of a dismissal for forum non conveniens means that a defendant invoking it ordinarily bears a heavy burden in opposing the plaintiff's chosen forum.”
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.