This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is somewhat accurate, but it seems to lack any attention to detail. For example, in the plaintiff forum shopping, there's no discussion of well-pleaded complaint, federal jurisidiction requirements (eg. you can't just pick federal jurisdiction without diversity jurisdiction or statutory authorization), or the plaintiff's ability to motion to transfer.

Also, I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but aren't motions for forum nonconviens pretty rare--and it's almost never applied federally except where one or both of the parties is from out of the country.

Just a couple thoughts. I'm not even sure to what degree people are keeping up pages like this. Mmmbeer 20:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• You're about half-right. FNC is only still used in Federal courts where the secondary forum is outside the country (regardles of where the parties are actually domiciled). But the same basic motion is available by statute, where the secondary forum is within the U.S.; it's just called by it's statutory name, a motion to transfer or a motion to dismiss, under sections 1404/1406. The elements vary slightly from the traditional "balancing factors" of common law FNC. It can have an effect on choice of law as well. Non_curat_lex, 22 December 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.55.115 ( talk • contribs)
  • I've been trying to do a bit of improvement at a time to a slew of civ pro articles - this one's on my list.  BD2412 ^talk 22:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Welcome back from your litigating. As to the first comment, the page is intended to be a non-specific coverage for the topic so it deals with principles rather than specifics — hence your sense that it is less than completely accurate. The forum conveniens issue is fairly common around the world. If reference is to be made to a particular jurisdiction, it should either be by way of example subsumed within the generic text, or it should be included under a state-specific heading. And I view any page I write as being continuously in need of improvement. I take your reference to be to the U.S. rather than one of the many other federal countries, so please add your expertise to the U.S. section. David91 01:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Wow, that editor from the Philippines must either be a nonlawyer, a law student, or a very poorly trained lawyer, to confuse forum shopping with res judicata. In the U.S., that's the kind of mistake made by a first-year law student at a third-tier law school. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 07:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply

This concept is not the unique to the legal profession. For example this is called venue shopping in political science. And even children know that if Dad says no you should ask mom. It would be move the legal variant into a subsection so the page could reside more comfortably in the world of dispute resolution or decision making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhyde ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

That's not a good idea. Think about it. The larger concept is SO BIG that it will eventually become a 20,000 word monster, then someone else will say, let's split this apart. (I see that happening on Wikipedia ALL THE TIME.) So it's best to keep it where it is and have a "Main article" link here from the larger concept. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 17:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree with Coolcaesar. Better to have "See also" links if other such articles exist (I'm not aware of any). If reliable sources discuss the similarities, we can include a subsection here. THF ( talk) 18:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Forum shopping, in United States law at least, is a robust concept with a substantial body of statutes and court-made doctrines designed to address it. While it is true that a child whose dad says no may go ask mom, the result that this would garner will vary completely from household to household, and no overriding body seeks to enforce a uniformity of response between parents in different households. This is the opposite of the circumstance with the courts, where both legislatures and appellate courts work to prevent forum shopping end enforce uniformity of results. The legal approach should be kept separate. bd2412 T 18:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Tiger Woods example was inappropriate. "Not pay a dime" is too informal to Wikipedia. Other issues pertain to excessive examples (For example list) and informal tone. El_C 22:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Many people may think that judges tend to be randomly assigned to cases as a method for preventing judge-shopping, but, at least in the Federal courts in the U.S., that's probably not true. I researched this issue with a random sample of Federal courts and wrote an article about it on a website that I edit and own. I'd like to add it to this article, but, because I wrote the article, I am my own editor, and I own the website hosting it, I have a conflict of interest in doing so. Please comment on whether it may be added. Nick Levinson ( talk) 03:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply