green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
18.6 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases · 2 courts ·
…under 28 u.s.c. 1404 (b), the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer a civil action from a division in which it is pending to any other division in the same district.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stewart v. Commissioner of SSA
under 28 u.s.c. 1404 (b), the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer a civil action from a division in which it is pending to any other division in the same district.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stewart v. Commissioner of SSA
under 28 u.s.c. 1404 (b), the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer a civil action from a division in which it is pending to any other division in the same district.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
BROADBAND iTV, INC. v. DISH Network, L.L.C.
under 28 u.s.c. 1404 (b), the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer a civil action from a division in which it is pending to any other division in the same district.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
paSafeShare LLC v. Microsoft Corporation
under 28 u.s.c. 1404 (b), the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer a civil action from a division in which it is pending to any other division in the same district.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
True Chemical Solutions, LLC v. Performance Chemical Company
under 28 u.s.c. 1404 (b), the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer a civil action from a division in which it is pending to any other division in the same district.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Performance Chemical Company v. True Chemical Solutions, LLC
under 28 u.s.c. 1404 (b), the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer a civil action from a division in which it is pending to any other division in the same district.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS v. OCWEN USVI SERVICES, LLC, as successor in interest to OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.
Inc., 111 F.3d 892, 892 (5th Cir. 1997) (“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (b), the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer a civil action from a division 1 Separately, Plaintiff seeks remand of this action to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c), stating that “[n]o allegations in the Complaint necessarily raise an actually disputed and substantial federal issue” because Plaintiff “has pleaded solely violations of U.S. Virgin Islands law.” (Dkt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. Ocwen USVI Services, LLC, as successor in interest to Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
Inc., 111 F.3d 892, 892 (5th Cir. 1997) (“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (b), the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer a civil action from a division 1 Separately, Plaintiff seeks remand of this action to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c), stating that “[n]o allegations in the Complaint necessarily raise an actually disputed and substantial federal issue” because Plaintiff “has pleaded solely violations of U.S. Virgin Islands law.” (Dkt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ardoin v. CCC Association, Inc.
In making that decision, the Fifth Circuit has stressed the value of “detailed, clear, and specific findings made by a district court in sealing or unsealing an order.” United States v. Sealed Search Warrants, 868 F.3d 385, 397 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Chavis, 111 F.3d 892, 892 (1997) (per curiam) (unpublished)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hudak v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company
United States v. Sealed Search Warrants, 868 F.3d 385, 397 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Chavis, 111 F.3d 892, 892 (1997) (per curiam) (unpublished)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Santibanez v. Director, TDCJ-CID
See, e.g., White v. Johnson, 1997 WL 156829, at *6 (5th Cir. Mar. 21, 1997) (rejecting failure-to-call-witness claim when the petitioner’s description of the uncalled witness’s testimony was conclusory); Balderas v. U.S., 2012 WL 3544753 , at *8 (E.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sealed Search Warrants
See, e.g., Chavis, 111 F.3d at 892 (finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion because, in large part, “[t]he district court’s order [was] not general in nature, but [was] very specific to particular information, in one particular document, in this defendant’s sentencing proceeding”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Joelle Ogletree v. Glen Rose Independent School District
See Chapman v. Homco, Inc., 886 F.2d 756, 758 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that limitations period on employment discrimination claim triggered on date of discharge, not on date of discovery of discriminatory intent); Merrill v. Southern Methodist Univ., 806 F.2d 600, 605 (5th Cir. 1986) (same); see also Anderson v. City of Dallas, 111 F.3d 892 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (same); Pacheco v. Rice, 966 F.2d 904, 906 (5th Cir. 1992) (same) (“To allow plaintiffs to raise employment discrimination claims whenever they begin to suspect that their employers had illicit motives would effectively evisce…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
White
v.
Johnson
v.
Johnson
White
v.
Johnson[*]
NO. 95-20383
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Mar 21, 1997
Appeal From: S.D.Tex. ,No.H-92-CV-2080
1
Affirmed.
*
Fed.R.App. P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 34.2