The Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 785 F.2d 896 (11th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
The Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 785 F.2d 896 (11th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jiangsu Hongyuan Pharmaceutical Co. v. DI Global Logistics Inc. (flsd, 2016-02-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Jiangsu Hongyuan Pharmaceutical Co. v. DI Global Logistics Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 779 F.2d 643, 644 (11th Cir.), vacated, 785 F.2d 896 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" Kerobo v. Southwestern Clean Fuels
6th Cir. · 2002 · signal: accord · confidence high
See Ricoh, 487 U.S. at 24 , 108 S.Ct. 2239 ; accord Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 779 F.2d 643 , 645 (11th Cir.1986) (noting that "the appellant filed motions to dismiss and to transfer on grounds of improper venue and inconvenient forum"), vacated en banc, 785 F.2d 896 (11th Cir.1986); and Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 696 F.Supp. 583, 585 (N.D.Ala.1988) (acknowledging on remand that "[i]n response to the complaint, Ricoh filed its motion to dismiss or to transfer this action to New York on grounds of improper venue and forum non conveniens. ").
discussed Cited "see" Kerobo v. Southwestern Clean Fuels, Corp.
6th Cir. · 2002 · signal: accord · confidence high
See Ricoh, 487 U.S. at 24 , 108 S.Ct. 2239 ; accord Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 779 F.2d 643 , 645 (11th Cir.1986) (noting that “the appellant filed motions to dismiss and to transfer on grounds of improper venue and inconvenient forum”), vacated en banc, 785 F.2d 896 (11th Cir.1986); and Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 696 F.Supp. 583, 585 (N.D.Ala.1988) (acknowledging on remand that “[i]n response to the complaint, Ricoh filed its motion to dismiss or to transfer this action to New York on grounds of improper venue and forum non conveniens.”).
cited Cited "see" Tisdale v. Shell Oil Co.
M.D. Ala. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corporation, 779 F.2d 643 (11th Cir.), vacated, 785 F.2d 896 (11th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Samson Plastic Conduit & Pipe Corp. v. Battenfeld Extrusionstechnik GMBH
M.D. Ala. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 779 F.2d 643, 648-49 (11th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 785 F.2d 896 (11th Cir.1986). *890 Samson contends, nevertheless, that the choice of forum clause in the instant case is invalid for three reasons: 1) the clause was never delivered to it by Batex and accordingly never became a part of the contract between the parties; 2) the clause is unreasonable; and 3) the clause is ambiguous and unenforceable. 1) Is the clause a part of the Samson-Batex contract?
discussed Cited "see, e.g." The Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corporation
11th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
By permitting district courts to transfer cases they might otherwise have dismissed, section 1404(a) mitigates the harsh consequences a plaintiff might suffer by bringing his action in a proper, but inconvenient, forum 3 I am perplexed by Judge Godbold's concern that a difference between federal and state court treatment of forum selection clauses will lead to "the kinds of forum shopping ... deplored in Erie." Post at 1077; see also Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 779 F.2d 643, 651 (11th Cir.1986) (Godbold, J., dissenting), vacated, 785 F.2d 896 (11th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.
11th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
I am perplexed by Judge Godbold's concern that a difference between federal and state court treatment of forum selection clauses will lead to "the kinds of forum shopping ... deplored in Erie." Post at 1077; see also Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 779 F.2d 643 , 651 (11th Cir.1986) (Godbold, J., dissenting), vacated, 785 F.2d 896 (11th Cir.1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The Stewart Organization, Inc., a Corporation Walter H. Stewart, and James S. Snow, Jr.
v.
Ricoh Corporation, a Corporation, Ricoh of America, Inc., a Corporation
85-7231.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 14, 1986.
785 F.2d 896
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

785 F.2d 896

The STEWART ORGANIZATION, INC., a corporation; Walter H.
Stewart, and James S. Snow, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
RICOH CORPORATION, a corporation, Ricoh of America, Inc., a
corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 85-7231.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

March 14, 1986.

Ralph H. Yeilding, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Scott M. Phelps, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-appellants.

Joseph W. Letzer, Thomas, Taliaferro, Forman, Burr & Murray, Janet L. Humphreys, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion January 10, 1986, 11th Cir., 1986, 779 F.2d 643)

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.[*]

BY THE COURT:

A member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the cause shall be reheard by this Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.

1

The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of en banc briefs.

*

Senior Circuit Judge Elbert P. Tuttle has elected to participate in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 46(c)