Kempe v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co.’s Empirical Analysis
876 F.2d 1138 · 1989
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Pt United Can Company Ltd v. Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc W (1998), Republic Panama v. Bcci Holdings Sa Sa Na
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404
Relies on Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno · Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon · Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Piper Aircraft held that a difference in the substantive law governing the action “should not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conve-niens inquiry.” In Piper that meant that the unavailability of strict liability as a theory of recovery was insufficient to render a Scottish forum inadequate for the resolution of a products liability action. The Supreme Court recognized, however, that there will be circumstances in which the remedy afforded by the alternative forum will be so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory “that dismissal would not be in the interest of justice.” Those circumstances do not arise unless a party “will be deprived of any remedy or [will be] treated unfairly.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The] administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion, the ‘local interest in having localized controversies decided at home,’ the interest in ‘having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the ... law that must govern the case,’ the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of law, or in the application of foreign law, and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘[T]he relative ease of access to sources of proof; [the] availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining willing, witnesses; [t]he possibility of view of [the] premises, if ... appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a ease easy, expeditious and inexpensive.’”
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.