14 canonical passages across 12 cases, quoted by 710 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 Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana Corporation Anchor | green | “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” | 230 |
| 2 | Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams | green | “only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.” | 129 |
| 3 | Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana Corporation | green | “the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” | 101 |
| 4 | Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Association, Inc. v. Homestead Insurance Company | green | “subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and, indeed, we have held that the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” | 56 |
| 5 | Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co. | green | “it is elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” | 46 |
| 6 | Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Corp. | green | “fraudulent joinder must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” | 36 |
| 7 | Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L. P. | green | “partnership . . . is a citizen of each state or foreign country of which any of its partners is a citizen.” | 24 |
| 8 | Grancare v. Ruth Thrower | green | “a defendant invoking federal court diversity jurisdiction on the basis of fraudulent joinder bears a heavy burden since there is a general presumption against fraudulent joinder.” | 20 |
| 9 | Mireles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | green | “demonstrating fraudulent joinder" requires showing that "after all disputed questions of fact and all ambiguities . . . are resolved in the plaintiff's favor, the plaintiff could not possibly recover against the party whose joinder is questioned.” | 19 |
| 10 | Jocelyn Allen v. the Boeing Company | green | “oinder is fraudulent when a plaintiff's failure to state a cause of action against the defendant is obvious according to the applicable state law.” | 17 |
| 11 | Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp. | green | “only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.” | 12 |
| 12 | Padilla v. AT & T CORP. | green | “even if plaintiff did not plead facts sufficient to state a claim against , defendants have not established that plaintiff could not amend her pleadings and ultimately recover against” | 11 |
| 13 | Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust | green | “e have relentlessly repeated that any remand order issued on the grounds specified in 1447(c) is immunized from all forms of appellate review, whether or not that order might be deemed erroneous by an appellate court.” | 3 |
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.