Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689 (10th Cir. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689 (10th Cir. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
72 citation events (30 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kosher Eats LLC v. Messner Reeves LLP, No. 2:26-cv-00784 (D. Utah Aug. 24, 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 692 Priority of jurisdiction in concurrent federal district court actions28 citing cases“the rule is that the first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consideration of the action until the proceedings before the first court are terminated.”10 citing courts quote it · 27 listed here
  • Kosher Eats LLC v. Messner Reeves LLP, No. 2:26-cv-00784 (D. Utah Aug. 24, 2026).
    ([T]he first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consideration of the action until the proceedings before the first court are…)
  • Kosher Eats LLC v. Messner Reeves LLP, No. 1:26-cv-01707 (D. Colo. Aug. 24, 2026).
    ([T]he first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consideration of the action until the proceedings before the first court are…)
  • Cherokee Nation v. Nash, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (N.D. Okla. 2010).published 3 cites
    (The rule is that the first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consideration of the action until the proceedings before the f…)
  • Cherokee Nation v. Nash, No. 2010-1169 (D.D.C. July 2, 2010).published 3 cites
    (The rule is that the first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consideration of the action until the proceedings before the f…)
  • Jack Butler v. Burning Man Proj., No. 1:24-cv-02045 (D. Colo. July 12, 2026).
    That case primarily concerned the application of the first-to-file rule, which provides that “the first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consid…
  • Rogers v. Vilsack, No. 1:21-cv-01779 (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2022).
    “[t]he simultaneous prosecution in two different courts of cases relating to the same parties and issues leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money”
  • Weinreich v. Brooks, No. 1:21-cv-10496 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2021).
    Co., 618 F.3d at 1167 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 66 Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir. 1965). 67 Texas E.
  • Weinreich v. Brooks, No. 2:19-cv-00953 (D. Utah Mar. 23, 2021).
    Co., 618 F.3d at 1167 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 66 Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir. 1965). 67 Texas E.
  • Wood v. Kelley, No. 1:20-cv-01221, 2021 WL 795490 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2021).
    Colo. Oct. 30, 2008) (quoting Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir. 1965))).
  • Gwacs Armory, LLC v. Ke Arms, LLC, No. 4:20-cv-00341 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2021).
    “The rule is that the first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consideration of the action until the proceedings before the fi…”
Show 17 more citing cases
  • Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. v. Chapman, No. 1:19-cv-00768 (M.D.N.C. July 9, 2020).
    July 6, 2009) (quoting Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir. 1965)).
  • Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-06316 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2018).
    That is so because “‘[t]he simultaneous prosecution in two different courts of cases relating to the same parties and issues “leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money.”’” Hill’s Pet Prods., 808 F. Supp. at 777 (quoting Cessna Ai…
  • Alter v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 57 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (D. Utah 2014).published
    (granting writ of mandamus ordering district court to decline to transfer subject cases, to "hold those cases in abeyance[,] and to take no further action in any of them until the final termination of the related cases n…)
  • In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008).published
    See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 141 F.3d 337, 340 (D.C.Cir.1998); In re Josephson, 218 F.2d 174, 183 (1st Cir.1954), abrogated on other grounds by In re Union Leader Corp., 292 F.2d 381, 383 (1st Cir. 1961); In re Warrick, 70 F.3d 736 , 740…
  • Affinity Memory & Micro, Inc. v. K & Q Enter., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 948 (E.D. Va. 1998).published
    Inc. v. Project Strategies Corp., 899 F.Supp. 1144 , 1150 n. 9 (S.D.N.Y.1995) ("Case law indicates that the court in which the first-filed case was brought decides the question of whether or not the first-filed rule, or alternatively, an e…
  • At & T Corp. v. Pab, Inc., 935 F. Supp. 584 (E.D. Pa. 1996).published
    Hill’s Pet Prods., 808 F.Supp. at 777 (quoting Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir.1965)).
  • Hill's Pet Prods. v. A.S.U., Inc., 808 F. Supp. 774 (D. Kan. 1992).published 2 cites
    “[t]he simultaneous prosecution in two different courts of cases relating to the same parties and issues ‘leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money”
  • Cenergy Corp. v. Bryson Oil & Gas P.L.C., 657 F. Supp. 867 (D. Nev. 1987).published
    Exxon Corp. v. United States, 655 F.2d 1112 , 1116 n. 5 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.1981); Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir.1965); Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Square Deal Market Co., Inc., 187 F.2d 219, 220 (D.C.Cir.1950); Tel…
  • Munsingwear, Inc. v. Damon Coats, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 532 (D. Minn. 1978).published
    E. g., Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir. 1965).
  • Relf v. Gasch, 511 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir. 1975).published 2 cites
    Van Dusen v. Barrack, supra note 12 , 376 U.S. at 619-620 , 84 S.Ct. at 811 , 11 L.Ed.2d at 951-952 ; Hoffman v. Blaski, supra note 12 , 363 U.S. at 343 , 80 S.Ct. at 1089 , 4 L.Ed.2d at 1262 ; Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, supra note 11 ,…
  • O'Hare Int'l Bank v. William E. Lambert, 459 F.2d 328 (1st Cir. 1972).published 2 cites
    “The rule is that the first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consideration of the action until the proceedings before the fi…”
  • T. v. Oxford Health Ins., No. 2:19-cv-00507 (D. Utah Aug. 11, 2020).
    Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler, 287 F.2d 43, 45 (2d Cir. 1961) (“Sound judicial discretion dictates that the second court decline its consideration of the action before it until the prior action before the first court is terminated.”); accord Cess…
  • Cherokee Nation v. Nash, 990 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (N.D. Okla. 2013).published
    (The rule is that the first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consideration of the action until the proceedings before the f…)
  • Cherokee Nation v. Nash, No. 2013-1313 (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2013).published
    (The rule is that the first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consideration of the action until the proceedings before the f…)
  • Cherokee Nation v. Nash, No. 2013-1313 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 2013).published
    (The rule is that the first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consideration of the action until the proceedings before the f…)
  • Ed Tobergte Assocs., Inc. v. Zide Sport Shop of Ohio, Inc., 83 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Kan. 1999).published 2 cites
    See Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689 , 692 (10th Cir.1965); see, also Hospah Coal Co. v. Chaco Energy Co., 673 F.2d 1161 (10th Cir.1982); Custom Energy, LLC v. Liebert Corp., No. Civ.
  • Edge Servs., Inc. v. DRI-Drilling Rigs Int'l, LLC, No. 5:26-cv-01222 (W.D. Okla. July 20, 2026).
At page 691 Transferring civil actions between district courts2 citing cases“Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to test the validity of the transfer order”1 citing court quotes it · 1 listed here
Other citing cases7 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, a corporation
v.
Honorable Wesley E. BROWN, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, and Honorable Charles W. Cahill, Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
No. 8114.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jul 6, 1965.
Published opinion
348 F.2d 689
1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4988
Charles W. Harris, Wichita, Kan. (Weigand, Curfman, Brainerd, Harris & Kaufman, Wichita, Kan., with him on the brief), for petitioner., Donald R. Newkirk, Wichita, Kan. (Paul R. Kitch, Wichita, Kan., with him on the brief), for respondents.
Breitenstein.
Cited by 41 opinions  |  Published
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

We have here an original application for writs of mandamus and prohibition seeking to set aside orders of the respondent, Honorable Wesley E. Brown, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, transferring certain cases to the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division.

A helicopter owned by petitioner Cessna took off on October 20, 1962, from the Lake Charles, Louisiana, municipal airport with four men aboard to visit an offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico about 65 miles from the airport. The helicopter was never seen again. Appropriate representatives or survivors of three of the riders in the helicopter filed six actions in the Lake Charles Division of the Western District of Louisiana. Each set of representatives and survivors brought a common-law action for wrongful death and an action in admiralty. The reason for the two actions was the fact that the location of the fatal crash was not known. Section 761, 46 U.S.C.,[*691] covering death on the high seas by wrongful act, applies when that act occurs “on the high seas beyond a marine league from the shore of any State, * * [1]

Cessna asserted that it was not subject to the service of process in Louisiana and challenged the jurisdiction of the federal court in which the suits had been brought. The plaintiffs then filed the same six actions in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas which concededly has jurisdiction over Cessna. The six Kansas suits were protective to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations in the event that the Western District of Louisiana was determined to be without jurisdiction.

Cessna filed answers in the Kansas cases and initiated various discovery proceedings. The plaintiffs then moved for a stay of the Kansas proceedings until the decision of the Louisiana court on the jurisdictional question and on August 19, 1964, the Kansas court ordered a 90-day stay. On August 26, 1964, the Louisiana court held that it had jurisdiction over Cessna. Cessna then moved the Louisiana court for a change of venue to Kansas or a stay of the proceedings in Louisiana. This motion was denied on October 27, 1964, and on November 4, 1964, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the Kansas court for a transfer of the Kansas cases to Louisiana or in the alternative for a stay of the Kansas proceedings until the disposition of the cases in Louisiana. On March 25, 1965, the Kansas court ordered the cases transferred to Louisiana. On motion of Cessna we granted a stay of that order so that the application for mandamus and prohibition could be heard on its merits. Meanwhile the cases progressed in Louisiana and were set for trial early in July, 1965. At the time of oral argument counsel said that the trials had been continued pending the determination of the application now before us.

Section 1404(a), 28 U.S.C., provides:

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”

The federal court in Kansas held that both the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice required the transfer. It held further that the requirement of a transfer only to a court where the action might have been brought was satisfied by the decision of the federal court in Louisiana that it had jurisdiction over Cessna.

Section 1404(a) applies to proceedings in admiralty as well as to ordinary civil actions.[2] Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to test the validity of the transfer order.[3]

The provision of § 1404(a) that a transfer may be made to a district “where it [the case] might have been brought” has been troublesome to courts and legal writers. Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, 2 Cir., 181 F.2d 949, 952, holds that a case may not be transferred on the motion of plaintiff to a district where the defendant is not subject to process. This decision was criticized in In re Josephson, 1 Cir., 218 F.2d 174, 185, and has been attacked by the text writers.[4] Nevertheless, the Foster-Milburn approach was accepted by the United States Supreme Court in Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 344, 80 S.Ct. 1084,[*692] where the Court held that the words “might have been brought” permit transfer only to a district where plaintiff would have the right, independent of the wishes of the defendant, to bring the action.[5] Accordingly, the cases may not be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana unless Cessna is subject to the process of that court.

Cessna insists that the Western District of Louisiana has no jurisdiction over it, and that, because the plaintiffs have brought the suits in the Kansas district which has jurisdiction, they should be required to proceed there. Plaintiffs counter with the argument that the decision of the Western District upholding jurisdiction over Cessna is determinative and satisfies the “where it might have been brought” requirement of § 1404(a).

It would have been unseemly for the federal district court in Kansas, and it is unseemly for us, to review the decision of the Western District of Louisiana upholding its jurisdiction. The remedy for Cessna lies in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. At the same time we are aware of the vigorous contention of Cessna that the Louisiana jurisdiction may not be sustained. The transfer of the Kansas cases to the Western District will add nothing to the jurisdiction of that district. If the cases are transferred and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ultimately holds that the Western District does not have jurisdiction over Cessna, the knot of procedural complications will have to be untied in some manner. We see no reason why such complications may not be avoided at this time.

Cessna would have the Kansas cases go forward without regard to the pendency of the Louisiana cases even though the Louisiana cases were filed first. The rule is that the first federal district court which obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues should have priority and the second court should decline consideration of the action until the proceedings before the first court are terminated.[6] The simultaneous prosecution in two different courts of cases relating to the same parties and issues “leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money.”[7] The defendant’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the first court should not change the rule when that court has upheld its jurisdiction and the defendant has a remedy in appeal.

In our opinion sound judicial administration requires that the Kansas cases should not be now transferred to Louisiana because of the complications which might result from an ultimate holding that Louisiana is without jurisdiction, and also requires that the Kansas cases should be held in abeyance until the termination of the Louisiana cases and any appeals therefrom. Such action will provide orderly procedure and protect the rights of the parties.

Leave to file the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition is granted. A writ shall issue forthwith prohibiting the transfer to the Western District of Louisiana, Lakes Charles Division, of the six cases mentioned in the petition and commanding the respondents to hold those cases in abeyance and to take no further action in any of them until the final termination of the related cases now pending in the Western District of Louisiana, Lakes Charles Division, or until the further order of this court.

1

The record before us indicates that the crash took place about 22 miles from the Louisiana shore but no judicial determination has been made of that fact.

2

Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26, 80 S.Ct. 1470, 4 L.Ed.2d 1540.

3

Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 80 S.Ct. 1084, 4 L.Ed.2d 1254. See also Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 615, note 3, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945.

4

See 1 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 0.145 [6.-1] (2d ed.); 1 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, ¶ 86.2, pp. 413-416 (Wright rev. 1960), and Supp. 1965. p. 192; and Wright, Federal Courts, pp. 143-144.

5

See also Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 22, 80 S.Ct. 1470; and Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 620, 84 S.Ct. 805.

6

National Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler, 2 Cir., 287 F.2d 43, 45. Cf. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co., 10 Cir., 180 F.2d 97, 101, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 816, 71 S.Ct. 46, 95 L.Ed. 600.

7

Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26, 80 S.Ct. 1470.