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 19 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 Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine Anchor | green | “substantiality' for venue purposes is more a qualitative than a quantitative inquiry, determined by assessing the overall nature of the plaintiff's claims and the nature of the specific events or omissions in the forum, and not by simply adding up the number of contacts.” | 11 |
| 2 | Olberding v. Illinois Central Railroad | green | “required to construe the venue statute strictly.” | 4 |
| 3 | Reliance Insurance Company v. Polyvision Corporation | green | “a logical one with a substantial connection to the litigation.” | 4 |
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.