Bullock v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that because “Section 1983 contains no special venue provision[,] . . . the general venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 apply” (alterations in original) (quoting Urrutia v. Harrisburg Cty. Police Dep’t., 91 F.3d 451, 462 (3d Cir. 1996))
• “[V]enue is proper if the activities that transpired in the forum district were not insubstantial in relation to the totality of the events. Such activities . . . cannot be tangential . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).