25 Cited authorities

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,690 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
  2. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,887 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable
  3. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,689 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )
  4. Van Dusen v. Barrack

    376 U.S. 612 (1964)   Cited 4,644 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"
  5. In re Volkswagen of Am.

    545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,593 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding this prong to be satisfied when "the harm . . . will already have been done by the time the case is tried and appealed, and the prejudice suffered cannot be put back in the bottle"
  6. In re Volkswagen AG

    371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,378 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is reversible error for the district court to consider the convenience of counsel
  7. In re Genentech, Inc.

    566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 799 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that relevant evidence in patent cases often comes from the accused infringer and may weigh in favor of transfer to that location
  8. In re TS Tech USA Corp.

    551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 602 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court's refusal to considerably weigh this factor in favor of transfer was erroneous when the witnesses would need to travel approximately 900 more miles to attend trial in Texas than in Ohio
  9. Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter

    768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014)   Cited 401 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that communications and wire transfers were insufficient to confer jurisdiction where the communications and transfers were initiated by the resident plaintiff
  10. In re Horseshoe Entertainment

    337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003)   Cited 562 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court abused discretion by not transferring Title VII case under § 1404
  11. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,521 times   186 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
  12. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 28,033 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
  13. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 16,724 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"
  14. Section 1406 - Cure or waiver of defects

    28 U.S.C. § 1406   Cited 14,255 times   52 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that transfer is proper to any district or division in which the action could have been brought
  15. Section 1400 - Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs

    28 U.S.C. § 1400   Cited 2,167 times   321 Legal Analyses
    Identifying proper venue for copyright and patent suits