Plum v. Tampax, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the plaintiff was a corporation based out of Denmark, and that the case turned on a question of whether Denmark or Pennsylvania was a more appropriate forum
• stating that there is not an alternate forum if plaintiff’s cause of action would elsewhere be barred by the statute of limitations unless the court is willing to accept defendant’s stipulation that it will not raise this defense
• observing, in the context of a forum non conveniens dispute, “the action will not be dismissed in any event unless an alternative forum is available to the plaintiff”
• construing international i.e., interstate forum non conveniens doctrine prior to enactment of Section 5322(e)
• for appellate court to review for abuse of discretion, trial court must first “exercise” discretion
• “Proper application of the doctrine of [forum non conveniens ] necessitates that the court below make a finding as to the availability of other forums and then exercise its discretion by considering all the factors.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).