Topic: a district court should consider the private interests of t… · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #15234

4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 26 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Moses v. Business Card Express, Inc..

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 Moses v. Business Card Express, Inc. Anchor
ca6 · 1991
green “a district court should consider the private interests of the parties, including their convenience and the convenience of potential witnesses, as well as other public-interest concerns, such as systemic integrity and fairness, which come under the rubric of 'interests of justice.” 8
2 Kerobo v. Southwestern Clean Fuels
ca6 · 2002
green “congress intended to give district courts the discretion to transfer cases on an individual basis by considering convenience and fairness.” 8
3 Moses v. Business Card Express, Inc.
ca6 · 1991
green “court should consider the private interests of the parties, including their convenience and the convenience of potential witnesses, as well as other public-interest concerns, such as systemic integrity and fairness, which come under the rubric of 'interests of justice.” 5
4 Moses v. Business Card Express, Inc.
ca6 · 1991
green “in ruling on a motion to transfer under 1404(a), a district court should consider the private interests of the parties, including their convenience and the convenience of potential witnesses, as well as other public-interest concerns, such as systemic integrity and fairness, wh…” 5

A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check