# Hoffman v. Blaski

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 13, 1960 · 363 U.S. 335

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422013

## Case

- **Full name:** HOFFMAN, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE, v. BLASKI Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 13, 1960
- **Citations:** 363 U.S. 335; 125 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 553; 80 S. Ct. 1084; 4 L. Ed. 2d 1254; 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1998
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stewart
- **Judges:** Whittaker, Stewart, Frankfurter, Harlan, Brennan
- **Cited by:** 1,019 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422013

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 pl…
- 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
- holding that parties cannot create subject matter jurisdiction through contractual forum selection clause.

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422013. Public record. Not legal advice.