Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 37 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from ESAB Group, Incorporated v. Zurich Insurance PLC.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ESAB Group, Incorporated v. Zurich Insurance PLC Anchor | green | “section 1367(c) recognizes courts' authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in limited circumstances, including . . . where the court dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” | 17 |
| 2 | Christopher J. Hinson v. Norwest Financial South Carolina, Incorporated | green | “under the authority of 28 u.s.c. 1367 (c), authorizing a federal court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a district court has inherent power to dismiss the case . . . provided the conditions set forth in 1367(c) for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdicti…” | 10 |
| 3 | International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Werner-Masuda | green | “because the court will dismiss the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.” | 10 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.