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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 27 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 Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Company Anchor | green | “the courts of california, county of orange, shall have jurisdiction over the parties in any action at law relating to the subject matter or the interpretation of this contract.” | 12 |
| 2 | Caldas & Sons, Inc. v. Willingham | green | “the laws and courts of zurich are applicable.” | 6 |
| 3 | Docksider, Ltd. v. Sea Technology, Ltd. | green | “when only jurisdiction is specified, the clause will generally not be enforced without some further language indicating the parties' intent to make jurisdiction exclusive.” | 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.