Carney v. Beracha’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 28 U.S.C. § 1692 · 28 U.S.C. § 754 · 28 U.S.C. § 959
Relies on Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno · M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp. · Alexander v. Hillman
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This case is part of a set of interconnected actions brought in the District of Connecticut to recover moneys resulting from a scheme that was carried out in great part in Connecticut. Second, removal of this' ancillary proceeding to a foreign jurisdiction while the primary actions are before the court in Connecticut would unnecessarily complicate matters and increase costs for the Receiver and the Receivership estate, and, possibly, the defendants, in litigating these matters. It could also lead to inconsistent outcomes.”
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.