S.D. New York· 10/22/2007
Klotz v. Xerox Corp.
Citations
- 519 F. Supp. 2d 430
- 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78334
- 2007 WL 3100220
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that “[t]he vast majority of district courts have enforced forum selection clauses in ERISA plans”
- rejecting argument that change in venue would deny plaintiffs day in court based on physical infirmity
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gerard E. Lynch
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- TRADECOMET. COM LLC v. Google, Inc.Second Circuit· 2011-07-26· cited 71×
- Roger Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension PlanSixth Circuit· 2014-10-14· cited 63×
- Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co., Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court· 2009-11-30· cited 43×
- Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co., Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court· 2008-07-28· cited 20×
- Rodriguez v. PepsiCo Long Term Disability PlanN.D. California· 2010-06-09· cited 19×
- Crewe v. Rich Dad Education, LLCS.D. New York· 2012-08-03· cited 17×
- Dumont v. Pepsico, Inc.D. Maine· 2016-06-29· cited 11×
- Haughton v. Plan Administrator of the Xerox Corp. Retirement Income Guarantee PlanW.D. Louisiana· 2014-03-06· cited 9×
- Coleman v. Supervalu, Inc. Short Term Disability ProgramN.D. Illinois· 2013-01-31· cited 9×
- Laasko v. Xerox Corp.C.D. California· 2008-07-17· cited 8×
- Feather v. SSM Health CareS.D. Illinois· 2016-10-25· cited 6×
- Scaglione v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Botteling Co.N.D. Ohio· 2012-07-30· cited 5×
- Frankford Crossing Shopping Center Dallas, Tx. Ltd. Partnership v. Pho Partners, LLCW.D. New York· 2013-04-29· cited 5×
- Marin v. Xerox Corp.N.D. California· 2013-03-11· cited 4×
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court· 1989-02-21· cited 6,595×
- Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court· 1987-04-06· cited 3,459×
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court· 1972-06-12· cited 3,455×
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.Supreme Court· 1988-06-20· cited 3,025×
- Egelhoff v. Egelhoff Ex Rel. BreinerSupreme Court· 2001-04-02· cited 737×
- James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health LabNinth Circuit· 2000-11-14· cited 735×
- Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd.Second Circuit· 2007-07-24· cited 434×
- Daniel v. American Board of Emergency MedicineSecond Circuit· 2005-10-07· cited 404×
- Goldie Miller, as of the Estate of Sarah M. Potok v. United Welfare FundSecond Circuit· 1995-12-19· cited 332×
- Roby v. Corp. of Lloyd'sSecond Circuit· 1993-06-02· cited 302×
- New Moon Shipping Company, Limited and International Marine Investors and Management Corporation v. Man B & W Diesel AgSecond Circuit· 1997-06-18· cited 202×
- Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil CompanyNinth Circuit· 1987-05-11· cited 182×
- John Boutari and Son, Wines and Spirits, S.A. v. Attiki Importers and Distributors IncorporatedSecond Circuit· 1994-04-15· cited 150×
- Robert E. Muller, Antoinette I. Muller v. First Unum Life Insurance CompanyFirst Circuit· 2003-08-18· cited 121×
- Asoma Corp. v. SK Shipping Co.Second Circuit· 2006-10-24· cited 82×
- Red Bull Associates, Gordon Weiss and Murray Weiss v. Best Western International, Inc.Second Circuit· 1988-11-29· cited 80×
- Janet D. Krizek v. Cigna Group InsuranceSecond Circuit· 2003-09-24· cited 45×
- Arnulfo P. Sulit, Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.Eighth Circuit· 1988-05-23· cited 31×
- Nicholas v. MCI Health and Welfare Plan No. 501E.D. Texas· 2006-01-11· cited 15×
- Schoemann Ex Rel. Schoemann v. Excellus Health Plan, Inc.D. Minnesota· 2006-08-02· cited 12×
Other cases named Klotz v. Xerox Corp.
3 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.