Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 840 F.2d 255 - Porter v. Groat

Porter v. Groat’s Empirical Analysis

840 F.2d 255 · 1988

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Carteret Savings Bank, FA v. Shushan (1990), 806 F. Supp. 582 - Verosol B v. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc. (1992)

14 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

20019881990200020102020decided

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. § 1406

Relies on Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. United States · Vazquez v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare · Sinclair v. Kleindienst · Corke v. Sameiet M. S. Song

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

  1. “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]e adopt as the rule in this circuit the reading of § 1406(a) that authorizes the transfer of a case to any district, which would have had venue if the case were originally brought there, for any reason which constitutes an impediment to a decision on the merits in the transferor district but would not be an impediment in the transferee district.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Looking to the language of § 1406, the statute is couched in terms of “laying venue in the wrong division or district.” The statute does not refer to “wrong” venue, but rather to venue laid in a “wrong division or district.” We conclude that a district is “wrong” within the meaning of § 1406 whenever there exists an “obstacle [to] * * * an expeditious and orderly adjudication” on the merits.”
    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.