4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 19 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 United Food & Commercial Workers Unions & Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Walgreen Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United Food & Commercial Workers Unions & Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Walgreen Co. Anchor | green | “having failed to plead facts that would establish a violation of section 1962(c), the cannot state a claim for conspiracy under section 1962(d) based on those same facts.” | 7 |
| 2 | Paul Burritt v. Lisa Ditlefsen | green | “the general rule, when the federal claims fall out before trial, is that the should relinquish jurisdiction over any supplemental . . . state law claims in order to minimize federal judicial intrusion into matters of purely state law.” | 5 |
| 3 | Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York | green | “n the rico context, the focus is on the directness of the relationship between the conduct and the harm.” | 4 |
| 4 | Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York | green | “the focus is on the directness of the relationship between the conduct and the harm.” | 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.