4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 30 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 Ballard v. District of Columbia.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ballard v. District of Columbia Anchor | green | “construe removal jurisdiction strictly, favoring remand where the propriety of removal is unclear.” | 9 |
| 2 | ['Mizell v. Suntrust Bank'] | green | “when a plaintiff seeks to have a case that has been removed to federal court remanded back to state court, the party opposing a motion to remand bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists in federal court.” | 8 |
| 3 | Downey v. Ambassador Development, LLC | green | “the party seeking removal of an action bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists in federal court.” | 7 |
| 4 | Downey v. Ambassador Development, LLC | green | “bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists in federal court.” | 6 |
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.