4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 31 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 City of Oakland v. Loretta E. Lynch.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City of Oakland v. Loretta E. Lynch Anchor | green | “is not a 'case or controversy,' and an article iii federal court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.” | 11 |
| 2 | Maya v. Centex Corp. | green | “to allow or to require the plaintiff to supply, by amendment to the complaint or by affidavits, further particularized allegations of fact deemed supportive of plaintiff's standing.” | 10 |
| 3 | Stephan Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc. | green | “for purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of standing, both trial and reviewing courts must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party.” | 6 |
| 4 | City of Oakland v. Loretta E. Lynch | green | “a suit brought by a plaintiff without article iii standing is not a 'case or controversy,' and an article iii federal court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.” | 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.