Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 875 F.2d 762 - Docksider Ltd

Docksider Ltd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
8
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 14 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably John Boutari and Son Wines and Spirits Sa v. Attiki Importers and Distributors Incorporated (1994), Paul Business Systems, Inc. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. (1990)

2 federal appellate · 14 district · 15 state decisions

27019801990200020102020decided

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 M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc. · Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co. · Nos. 83-6228, 83-7678 · Keaty v. Freeport Indonesia, 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he general rule in cases containing forum selection clauses is that “[wjhen only jurisdiction is specified the clause will generally not be enforced without some further language indicating the parties’ intent to make jurisdiction exclusive.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[tjhis language requires enforcement of the clause because Docksider not only consented to the jurisdiction of the state courts of Virginia, but further agreed by mandatory language that the venue for all actions arising out of the license agreement would be Gloucester County, Virginia. This mandatory language makes clear that venue, the place of suit, lies exclusively in the designated county. Thus, whether or not several states might otherwise have jurisdiction over actions stemming from the agreement, all actions must be filed and prosecuted in Virginia.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Licensee hereby agrees and consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Virginia. Venue of any action brought hereunder shall be deemed to be in Gloucester County, Virginia.”
    4 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.