Summary

Wiley Blount Rutledge United States v. National City Lines…

It is one not to be answered by such indecisive inquiries as whether the venue or jurisdictional statute is labeled a 'special' or a 'general' one. Nor is it to be determined merely by the court's view that applicability of the doctrine would serve the ends of justice in the particular case. It is rather to be decided, upon consideration of all the relevant materials, by whether the legislative purpose and the effect of the language used to achieve it were to vest the power of choice in the plaintiff or to confer power upon the courts to qualify his selection.
Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge United States v. National City Lines…

The short outcome was that Congress expanded the venue provisions of the Sherman Act, § 7, in two ways, viz.: (1) by adding to 'resides or is found,' in § 4 of the Clayton Act, the words 'or has an agent'; (2) in § 12 by adding 'or transacts business.' Thus strict uniformity in the two sections' venue provisions was not achieved. But whatever their differences may be, each addition was designed to aid plaintiffs by giving them a wider choice of venues, and thereby to secure a more effective, because more convenient, enforcement of antitrust prohibitions.
Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge United States v. National City Lines…

The doctrine leaves much to the discretion of the court to which plaintiff resorts, and experience has not shown a judicial tendency to renounce one's own jurisdiction so strong as to result in many abuses.↑ The Eastman opinion referred to the disadvantages suffered by plaintiffs under § 7 of the Sherman Act who were injured where they resided or conducted their business, only to be forced to seek out the wrongdoing company in a distant forum to secure venue and service of process, and therefore also to transport witnesses and incur other disadvantages in trial.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature