7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 153 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 Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P. Anchor | green | “of course, where a plaintiff is unable to allege any fact sufficient to support its claim, a complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.” | 70 |
| 2 | Pedro Pino v. Patrick Ryan, Deputy Superintendent of Programs, and David Barrenger, Senior Recreation Supervisor at Washington Correctional Facility | green | “he decision that a complaint is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory for purposes of dismissal under section 1915(d), may be based upon a defense that appears on the face of the complaint.” | 28 |
| 3 | Sarah B. Shields, Individually and as Representative of All Others Similarly Situated v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., George F. Taylor and Irwin Engelman | green | “it is well established that an amended complaint ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.” | 18 |
| 4 | John Andrew Cuoco v. Kenneth Moritsugu | green | “the problem with cuoco's causes of action is substantive; better pleading will not cure it. repleading would thus be futile. such a futile request to replead should be denied.” | 14 |
| 5 | John Andrew Cuoco v. Kenneth Moritsugu | green | “the problem with causes of action is substantive; better pleading will not cure it. repleading would thus be futile. such a futile request to replead should be denied.” | 12 |
| 6 | Salinger v. Projectavision, Inc. | green | “three bites at the apple is enough.” | 7 |
| 7 | Salahuddin v. Cuomo | green | “dismissal . . . is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” | 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.