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.
5 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 35 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 PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc. Anchor | green | “one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 1331 ; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 1332 (a).” | 11 |
| 2 | PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc. | green | “(1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 1331 ; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 1332 (a).” | 8 |
| 3 | Steven K. Dunlap v. G &L Holding Group | green | “even when a plaintiff has pled only state-law causes of action, he may not avoid federal jurisdiction if either (1) his state-law claims raise substantial questions of federal law or (2) federal law completely preempts his state-law claims.” | 6 |
| 4 | Thermoset Corporation v. Building Materials Corp of America | green | “federal courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction.” | 6 |
| 5 | Steven K. Dunlap v. G &L Holding Group | green | “the mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction.” | 4 |
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.