Woodward v. Bridgestone/ Firestone, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that in modern forum non conveniens analysis “the location of documents is not significant because documents can be transported with ease and at little expense”
• holding that the application of Australian law by an Illinois court would not be a dispositive factor in a forum non conveniens analysis because “[a]n Illinois court is competent to determine which law applies to this controversy and to apply the law of Australia, if necessary”
• noting that in 29 No. 1-09-2847 modern forum non conveniens analysis “the location of documents is not significant because documents can be transported with ease and at little expense”
• noting that defendants were “American corporations with extensive foreign business dealings”
• denying motion to transfer to accident site in Australia, where “witnesses related to design, testing and accident rates” are scattered throughout the United States
• affirming denial of a motion to transfer product liability case, even though plaintiffs’ chosen forum was neither the accident site nor the site of their residence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).