finding that the power of a district court under § 1404(a) to transfer an action to another district is made to depend not upon the wish or waiver of the defendant but, rather, upon whether the transferee district was one in which the action ‘might have been brought’ by the plaintiff
How later courts described this case
- finding that the power of a district court under § 1404(a) to transfer an action to another district is made to depend not upon the wish or waiver of the defendant but, rather, upon whether the transferee district was one in which the action ‘might have been brought’ by the plaintiff
- holding that “where it might have been brought” does not mean “where it may now be rebrought, with defendants’ consent”
- stating 5 that “the power of a District Court under § 1404(a) to transfer an action to another district is made to depend … upon whether the transferee district was one in which the action ‘might have been brought’ by the plaintiff”
- holding that the lan- guage of 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a)—which permits the transfer of “any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought”—unambiguously means at the time the lawsuit was filed
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Skil Corporation v. Millers Falls Company, 541 F.2d 554 (1976)
While it would be improper for us to question the applicability of those reasons to the facts in Blaski, we must conclude that those reasons are inapplicable to the facts before us.
The opinion
*345 Mr. Justice Stewart,
concurring in No. 25.
Two Courts of Appeals disagreed about the meaning of a federal law, as conscientious federal courts sometimes do. From the point of view of efficient judicial administration the resulting history of this litigation is no subject for applause. But, as the Court points out, no claim was made here that the decision of the Fifth Circuit precluded Judge Hoffman or the Seventh Circuit from remanding the case, and on the merits of that question I agree with the Court that principles of res judicata were inapplicable. In any event, the conflict between the Circuits is now resolved, and what happened here will not happen again.