7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 79 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 Robbins, H. v. Consolidated Rail & Penn Central.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Robbins, H. v. Consolidated Rail & Penn Central Anchor | green | “it is within the trial court's discretion to weigh some factors more heavily than others and weighing the factors is not an exercise in counting numbers.” | 16 |
| 2 | Bochetto, G. v. Dimeling, Schreiber & Park | green | “not an exercise in counting numbers.” | 14 |
| 3 | Hovatter, D. v. CSX Transportation | green | “provides the court with a means of looking beyond technical considerations such as jurisdiction and venue to determine whether litigation in the plaintiff's chosen forum would serve the interests of justice under the particular circumstances.” | 13 |
| 4 | Bochetto, G. v. Dimeling, Schreiber & Park | green | “an exercise in counting numbers.” | 11 |
| 5 | Robbins, H. v. Consolidated Rail & Penn Central | green | “although the decedent worked at the train yard in indiana, the policies and procedures related to the decedent's exposure to chemicals and cancer-causing substances were determined at consolidated rail's headquarters in philadelphia.” | 11 |
| 6 | Petty v. Suburban General Hospital | green | “a court may find that the presumption in favor of a plaintiff's choice of forum may be less stringently considered when the plaintiff has chosen a foreign forum to litigate his or her claims.” | 7 |
| 7 | Ficarra, D. v. Consolidated Rail Corp. | green | “at first glance the plaintiffs' cases strikingly resemble robbins.” | 7 |
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.