31 Cited authorities

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.
487 U.S. 22 (1988) Cited 4,913 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal law determines the validity of a forum selection clause
Van Dusen v. Barrack
376 U.S. 612 (1964) Cited 4,658 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "change of venue under § 1404 generally should be, with respect to state law, but a change of courtrooms"
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co.
55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) Cited 2,450 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff's choice of venue "should not be lightly disturbed"
Richards v. United States
369 U.S. 1 (1962) Cited 1,455 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that in FTCA cases "the issue of the applicable law is controlled by a formal expression of the will of Congress"
Licari v. Elliott
57 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1982) Cited 2,758 times
Holding that plaintiff did not sustain a "significant Limitation of use of a body function or system" where plaintiff sustained a concussion, acute cervical sprain, acute dorsal lumbar sprain, and chest contusion; plaintiff offered no evidence as to the extent of limitation of movement and at most established that he had suffered a painful sprain which limited his back and neck motion somewhat
Cont'l Cas. v. U.S.
535 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 781 times
Holding that the Federal Tort Claims Act's "scope-of-employment requirement" was jurisdictional because the requirement "appears in the same sentence as Congress's grant of jurisdiction" and thus should be resolved under Rule 12(b)
Petruska v. Gannon University
462 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2006) Cited 781 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a negligent misrepresentation claim was unaffected by the ministerial exception because its resolution "does not turn on the lawfulness of the decision to restructure, but rather upon the truth or falsity of the assurances that she would be evaluated on her merits" and that the breach of contract claim could also move forward because enforcement "in no way constitutes a state-imposed limit upon a church's free exercise rights," although it would be subject to an evaluation of whether resolution "required inquiry into the church's ecclesiastical policy"
White-Squire v. U.S.
592 F.3d 453 (3d Cir. 2010) Cited 324 times
Holding the sum-certain requirement in § 2675(b) is jurisdictional because the FTCA's jurisdiction-granting provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), states that district courts have jurisdiction "[s]ubject to the provisions of chapter 171," and § 2675 is contained in chapter 171
Lightfoot v. U.S.
564 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 193 times
Holding that mailing a FTCA claim does not satisfy the presentment requirement when the agency did not receive the claim
Windt v. Qwest Commun
529 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 155 times
Finding that the district court did not "improperly ignore" U.S.-based litigation in granting FNC dismissal because the other cases had been previously terminated or involved issues that were less significant
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 70,485 times 126 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,670 times 188 Legal Analyses
Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR
Section 1346 - United States as defendant
28 U.S.C. § 1346 Cited 24,222 times 23 Legal Analyses
Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"
Rule 78 - Hearing Motions; Submission on Briefs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 Cited 22,822 times
Providing that court may decide motions on written statements of reasons in support and opposition to expedite business
Section 2679 - Exclusiveness of remedy
28 U.S.C. § 2679 Cited 5,386 times 5 Legal Analyses
Granting tort immunity to federal agency employees
Section 112 - New York
28 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 1,311 times 1 Legal Analyses
Tracing history of provision prior to 1948 revision
Section 1402 - United States as defendant
28 U.S.C. § 1402 Cited 877 times 2 Legal Analyses
Providing that any action filed in district court against the United States "may be prosecuted only . . . in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides"

Binion v. U.S. Marshals Service et al

31 Cited authorities

Holding that federal law determines the validity of a forum selection clause

Holding that a "change of venue under § 1404 generally should be, with respect to state law, but a change of courtrooms"

Holding that a plaintiff's choice of venue "should not be lightly disturbed"

Holding that in FTCA cases "the issue of the applicable law is controlled by a formal expression of the will of Congress"

Holding that the Federal Tort Claims Act's "scope-of-employment requirement" was jurisdictional because the requirement "appears in the same sentence as Congress's grant of jurisdiction" and thus should be resolved under Rule 12(b)

Holding the sum-certain requirement in § 2675(b) is jurisdictional because the FTCA's jurisdiction-granting provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), states that district courts have jurisdiction "[s]ubject to the provisions of chapter 171," and § 2675 is contained in chapter 171

Holding that mailing a FTCA claim does not satisfy the presentment requirement when the agency did not receive the claim

Finding that the district court did not "improperly ignore" U.S.-based litigation in granting FNC dismissal because the other cases had been previously terminated or involved issues that were less significant

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

Providing that court may decide motions on written statements of reasons in support and opposition to expedite business

Granting tort immunity to federal agency employees

Tracing history of provision prior to 1948 revision

Providing that any action filed in district court against the United States "may be prosecuted only . . . in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides"