Kalama v. Matson Navigation Co.’s Empirical Analysis
875 F.3d 297 · 2017
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1294 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1407
Relies on Quern v. Jordan · Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach · Sammye R. Holloway v. Sally Brush Clermont County, Ohio · Mobile Anesthesiologists Chicago, LLC v. Anesthesia Associates of Houston Metroplex, P.A. · Jones v. Infocure 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Several nonresident defendants, although not subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, nevertheless agreed to waive their personal jurisdiction defense as the quid pro quo to avoid the expense of litigating these cases in as many as 13 different jurisdictions simultaneously, and to take advantage of the consolidated handling available in [the Northern District of Ohio].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“defendants faced a Hobson's choice: they could either have agreed to a transfer of the cases to another jurisdiction (and thus lost the ability to assert cross-claims against manufacturer defendants), or they could have chosen to remain in the Northern District of Ohio and lost the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize a district court to strip a defendant of its right to assert an affirmative defense in an answer, it was not an abuse of discretion to determine that the ship-owner defendants could seek to preserve their personal-jurisdiction defense at that time.”
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.