Citation network
Norwood Vs. Kirkpatrick
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 11, 1955
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 29 (1955) U.S. Supreme Court Norwood v. KirkpatrickSearch
-
U.S. 29 (1955) Norwood v. KirkpatrickSearch
-
Since the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had held, in All States Freight v. ModarelliSearch
-
a) as he did in the case of Naughton v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
of the stricter rule of forum non conveniens as recognized in decisions of this Court. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSearch
-
But, since the Naughton case, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had held, in All States Freight v. ModarelliSearch
-
of the Fourth Circuit, consultant to the Advisory Committee, writing for the court in Jiffy Lubricator Co., Inc. v. Stewart-WarnerSearch
-
the plaintiffs had no connection whatever, is sufficient in itself to support a finding of negligence. See Jesionowski v. BostonSearch
-
of Taft-Hartley. See Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. WestinghouseSearch
-
forum, even though the venue is proper. As an example of the need of such a provision, see Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. KepnerSearch
-
setting forth the considerations which should govern the exercise of the trial judge's discretion. Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSearch
-
Koster v. LumbermensSearch
-
The Courts of Appeals have divided on the issue. With the opinions cited by the majority, compare Ford Motor Co. v. RyanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Nicol v. KoscinskiSearch
-
Wiren v. LawsSearch
-
U.S.App.D.C. 105, 194 F.2d 873. But see Amalgamated Assn. v. SouthernSearch
-
this provision precluded the application of forum non conveniens to suits under the Act. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. KepnerSearch
-
Miles v. IllinoisSearch
-
FELA suits, along with any civil action, subject to forum non conveniens. This Court asserted just that in Pope v. AtlanticSearch
-
Emphasis supplied.) Again in Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-TwoSearch
-
And as late as 1953, Justices JACKSON, BLACK, and MINTON, dissenting in Wells v. SimondsSearch
-
These are broad and imprecise and involve such considerations as the state of the court's docket. Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSearch
-
suit, brought by a bona fide resident, in order to spare the defendant inconvenience and expense. Williamson v. North-EasternSearch
-
All States Freight, Inc. v. ModarelliSearch
-
Jiffy Lubricator Co. v. Stewart-WarnerSearch
-
a) find mandamus appropriate in circumstances less compelling than these. Ford Motor Co. v. RyanSearch
-
Shapiro v. BonanzaSearch
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. R. Co. v. IgoeSearch
-
Nicol v. KoscinskiSearch
-
See Koster v. LumbermensSearch
-
Canada Malting Co. v. PatersonSearch
-
National Shawmut Bank v. CitySearch
-
Universal Adjustment Corp. v. MidlandSearch
-
Great Western R. Co. v. MillerSearch
-
Jackson & Sons v. Lumbermen'sSearch
-
Logan v. BankSearch
-
Williamson v. North-EasternSearch
-
and have pointed up the civil law basis of its reasoning, Blair, supra, at 21, n. 100. The reasoning in Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
on litigation under that section, involved nonresidents. And dicta to the same effect in Universal Adjustment Corp. v. MidlandSearch
-
Gamburg v. RaySearch
-
Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. IronSearch
-
Peters v. EquitableSearch
-
Tri-State Transit Co. v. MondySearch
-
Gregonis v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
O'Neill v. CunardSearch
-
International Milling Co. v. ColumbiaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Norwood v. KirkpatrickSearch
-
All States Freight v. ModarelliSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial