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.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 40 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 A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin Anchor | green | “has traditionally been applied 'in a more pragmatic and less technical way . . . than in other situations” | 10 |
| 2 | Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. | green | “an issue presents a substantial ground for difference of opinion if courts, as opposed to parties, disagree on a controlling legal issue.” | 8 |
| 3 | Guyther v. Hebb (In Re Hebb) | green | “as a general rule, a final judgment under 28 u.s.c. 1291 is 'one which ends the litigation . . . and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” | 6 |
| 4 | KPMG Peat Marwick, L.L.P. v. Estate of Nelco, Ltd. | green | “an interlocutory appeal will lie only if a difference of opinion exists between courts on a given controlling question of law, creating the need for an interlocutory appeal to resolve the split or clarify the law.” | 4 |
| 5 | Pawlak v. United States Department of Education (In re Pawlak) | green | “an order involves a controlling question of law when reversal of the bankruptcy court's order would be dispositive of the case as either a legal or practical matter and determination of the issue on appeal will materially affect the outcome.” | 4 |
| 6 | Pawlak v. United States Department of Education (In re Pawlak) | green | “disagree as to a bankruptcy court's interlocutory order, but rather only where substantial ground for disagreement exists as to the controlling issues of law that informed the order.” | 4 |
| 7 | Pawlak v. United States Department of Education (In re Pawlak) | green | “factual determinations and appeals presenting a question of law and fact are not appropriate for interlocutory review.” | 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.