Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 23 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 First Nat. Bank v. Guerine.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | First Nat. Bank v. Guerine Anchor | green | “court congestion is a relatively insignificant factor, especially where the record does not show the other forum would resolve the case more quickly.” | 14 |
| 2 | Kwasniewski v. Schaid | green | “it is all but incongruous for defendants to argue that their own home county is inconvenient.” | 6 |
| 3 | Bland v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. | green | “if central emphasis were placed on any one factor, the forum non conveniens doctrine would lose much of the very flexibility that makes it so valuable” | 3 |
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.