Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
When a case is filed before a court, the court decides whether it has personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and if so, whether it is the most appropriate forum or venue. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Latin for "inappropriate forum", a judge has a discretion to transfer a case if the court selected is not the most convenient ...
Finally, a case may be dismissed because its venue is harshly "unfair" to one or more parties under a doctrine called forum non conveniens, often used in cases where the events took place in a foreign country. Defendants can waive venue at the time of trial (Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165 (1939)). Plaintiffs can waive ...
Forum non conveniens (Latin for "an inconvenient forum" [1] [2] [3]) (FNC) is a mostly common law legal doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and dismisses the case. Forum non conveniens may be used to dismiss a case, for ...
The Petitioner moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that venue was "wrong" under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) and "improper" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), citing the contract's forum selection clause. [3] In the alternative, the Petitioner sought transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). [3]
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered the lower court's application of its power of forum non conveniens, a common law legal doctrine whereby courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties.
You can also see how much public funding was used to pay for these costly NFL stadiums:
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits. [1]While a 1957 Supreme Court ruling had determined that patent infringement cases were to be tried in the state within which the defendant was incorporated, subsequent changes to Judiciary and Judicial Procedure implemented by ...
The Spiliada or Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1986] UKHL 10, [1987] AC 460 is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. It has been described as the "seminal case" on jurisdictional issues. [1]