How cited: Clayton v. Warlick · Go Syfert

Clayton v. Warlick (1956)

green · 64 citation events across 22 courts. Showing the 28 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
195619912026
Rule Authority · 2d Cir. · signal: cf. · 2 citations in this opinion
Although it has been occasionally held that the Courts of Appeals should never review the disposition of a § 1404 (a) transfer motion “where the judge in the district court has considered the interests stipulated in the statute and has decided thereon”, All States Freight, Inc. v. Modarelli, 196 F.2d 1010, 1012 (3d Cir.1952); Great Northern R'y v. Hyde, 238 F.2d 852, 857 (8th Cir.1956), adhered to, 245 F.2d 537 (8th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 872 , 78 S.Ct. 117 , 2 L.…
Rule Authority · 2d Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
We have no sympathy with shopping around for forums." Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4 Cir. 1956); see Torres v. Walsh, 221 F.2d 319 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 836 , 76 S.Ct. 72 , 100 L.Ed. 746 (1955).
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
Corp. v. Modern Welding Co., 502 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir. 1974); Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 704-06 (4th Cir. 1956); see Gower v. Lehman, 799 F.2d 925, 927 (4th Cir. 1986). 4 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable.
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
Ellicott Machine Corp. v. Modern Welding Co., 502 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir. 1974); Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 704-06 (4th Cir. 1956). 3 Therefore, we deny Thornton's petition for mandamus relief in No. 92-8013 though we grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 4 We dismiss the appeal in No. 92-6191 for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable.
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
True, in Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4 Cir. 1956), we declined to countermand by mandamus or prohibition an order of transfer.
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
True, in Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4 Cir. 1956), we declined to countermand by mandamus or prohibition an order of "transfer.
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
On the other hand, on the test I think proper, we could have dismissed the petition on a mere reading of the judge's memorandum, which made clear that he acted judicially although, in my view, in this instance injudiciously. 24 If we possessed no other guides to decision, I would therefore urge that the court in banc disapprove Ford Motor Co. v. Ryan, supra, and align itself with the views forcibly expressed by Judge Goodrich for the Third Circuit in All States Freight, Inc.…
green Ackert v. Bryan (1962)
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
Judge Parker in Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4th Cir. 1956) stated the proposition succinctly: 19 "We are not impressed by the argument that such transfer should be denied because of an alleged conflict of decision between this Circuit and the Seventh on an important question of law involved in the case.
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
Judge Parker in Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4th Cir. 1956) stated the proposition succinctly: “We are not impressed by the argument that such transfer should be denied because of an alleged conflict of decision between this Circuit and the Seventh on an important question of law involved in the case.
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y. · 2 citations in this opinion
Green Co., Inc. v. MacMahon, supra. Surely, however, as our Court of Appeals recently noted, “[a] plaintiff may not resist the transfer of his action to another district court on the ground that the transferee court will or may interpret federal law in a manner less favorable to him * * *. ‘We have no sympathy with shopping around for forums.’ Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4 Cir.1956); see Torres v. Walsh, 221 F.2d 319 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 836 , 76 S.Ct.…
Quote Authority · D. Or. · signal: see also
Green Co. v. MacMahon, 312 F.2d 650, 652 (2d Cir. 1962); see also Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4th Cir. 1956) (“We are not impressed by the argument that such transfer should be denied because of an alleged conflict of decision between this Circuit and the Seventh on an important question of law involved in the case.”); Scheinbart v. Certain-Teed Prods.
“We are not impressed by the argument that such transfer should be denied because of an alleged conflict of decision between this Circuit and the Seventh on an important question of law involved in the case.”
Quote Authority · W.D.N.C.
Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4th Cir. 1956) (“We are not impressed by the argument that such transfer should be denied because of an alleged conflict of decision between this Circuit and the Seventh on an important question of law involved in the case.”).
“We are not impressed by the argument that such transfer should be denied because of an alleged conflict of decision between this Circuit and the Seventh on an important question of law involved in the case.”
Quote Authority · S.D. Ill.
Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4th Cir. 1956) (“We are not impressed by the argument that such transfer should be denied because of an alleged conflict of decision between this Circuit and the Seventh on an important question of law involved in the case.”).
“We are not impressed by the argument that such transfer should be denied because of an alleged conflict of decision between this Circuit and the Seventh on an important question of law involved in the case.”
Rule Authority · D. Minnesota
Id. (citing Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4th Cir. 1956)).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
We have no sympathy with shopping around for forums.’ ” Id. (quoting Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4th Cir.1956)).
Rule Authority · W.D.N.C.
APPEALABILITY OF TRANSFER ORDERS An order granting or denying a motion to transfer under § 1404(a) is considered interlocutory and is ordinarily non-appealable. 2 Gower v. Lehman, 799 F.2d 925, 927 (4th Cir.1986); Ellicott Machine Corp. v. Modern Welding Co., 502 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir.1974) (Craven, J.) (“it is well settled that the decision of a district judge on a motion for change of venue under section 1404(a) is not appealable as a final judgment”); Clayton v. Warlick,…
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Green Co. v. MacMahon, 312 F.2d 650, 652 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U. S. 928 , 83 S.Ct. 876 , 9 L.Ed.2d 736 (1963) ; Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4th Cir. 1956) ; Chicago, R.I. & Pac.
Rule Authority · S.D. Tex.
Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4th Cir. 1956); Chicago R.
Cited (see also) · 3rd Cir. · signal: see also
See In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171, 1175-76 (D.C.Cir.1987) (holding that transferee court should decide federal claim based on its own view of law without deference to law of transferor circuit); see also Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699 , 706(4th Cir.1956) (holding that "the same law, the federal ... law, will be applied wherever [the case] is tried" and thus choice of law questions should not influence a decision to transfer under 28 U.S.C.…
Cited (see also) · 4th Cir. · signal: see also
See In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171, 1175-76 (D.C.Cir.1987) (holding that transferee court should decide federal claim based on its own view of law without deference to law of transferor circuit); see also Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699 , 706(4th Cir.1956) (holding that "the same law, the federal ... law, will be applied wherever [the case] is tried" and thus choice of law questions should not influence a decision to transfer under 28 U.S.C.…
Cited (see also) · D.C. Cir. · signal: see also
Green Co. v. MacMahon, 312 F.2d 650 (1962), cert, denied, 372 U.S. 928 , 83 S.Ct. 876 , 9 L.Ed.2d 736 (1963); Ackert v. Bryan, 299 F.2d 65 , 69-70 (1962); see also Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4th Cir.1956); Scheinbart v. Certain-Teed Products Corp., 367 F.Supp. 707 (S.D.N.Y.1973).
Cited (see also) · 4th Cir. · signal: compare
Compare Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 702-706 (4th Cir. 1956), with Morehead v. Barksdale, 263 F. 2d 117, 118-119 (1959) and General Tire and Rubber Co. v. Watkins, 326 F.2d 926, 929 (4th Cir.) cert. denied, 377 U.S. 909 , 84 S.Ct. 1160 , 12 L.Ed.2d 179 (1964), we need not presently decide.
Cited · 2d Cir. · signal: see
See Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699 (4 Cir. 1956).
Cited · D. Maryland · signal: see
See Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 700-701 (4th Cir.1956); Polaroid Corp. v. Casselman, 213 F.Supp. 379, 383 (S.D.N.Y.1962); Torres v. S.S.
Cited · C.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699, 706 (4th Cir.1956) (“We have no sympathy with shopping around for forums.”) It does not seem that Plaintiff is attempting to find a forum that will give her favorable rulings.
Cited · E.D. Va. · signal: see
See Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699 (4th Cir. 1956).
Cited (see also) · D. Maryland · signal: see also
See also, Clayton v. Warlick, 232 F.2d 699 (4 Cir. 1956) ; Jiffy Lubricator Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corporation, 177 F.2d 360 (4 Cir. 1949).
Cited · S.D.N.Y. · signal: see
See Clayton v. Warlick, 4 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 699, 706 .