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 5 cases, quoted by 39 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 Anand Prakash v. American University.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Anand Prakash v. American University Anchor | green | “domicile is determined by two factors: physical presence in a state, and intent to remain there for an unspecified or indefinite period of time.” | 24 |
| 2 | CostCommand, LLC v. WH Administrators, Inc. | green | “an individual has citizenship in a state for diversity purposes if he is an american citizen and is domiciled in the state.” | 6 |
| 3 | Naegele v. Albers | green | “while residency is indicative of domicile, it is not determinative.” | 3 |
| 4 | Bickford v. Government of the United States of America | green | “although a pro se complaint is held to a less stringent standard than other complaints, even a pro se plaintiff . . . bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction.” | 3 |
| 5 | McKee v. United States Department of Justice | green | “federal diversity jurisdiction exists only in cases in which no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant.” | 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.