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.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 26 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 Rebekka Anne Behr v. James Campbell.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rebekka Anne Behr v. James Campbell Anchor | green | “applies only when litigants try to appeal state court losses in the lower federal courts.” | 7 |
| 2 | Collins v. CITRUS NAT. BANK | green | “where two or more documents are executed by the same parties, at or near the same time, in the course of the same transaction, and concern the same subject matter, they will be read and construed together.” | 6 |
| 3 | Rebekka Anne Behr v. James Campbell | green | “allowing federal district courts to alter or directly review the judgments of state courts would violate both of those jurisdictional grants.” | 4 |
| 4 | Dixon v. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION | green | “the banking statute of frauds is applicable to fraud claims where the borrower has alleged that the lender orally agreed to make financial accommodations to the borrower.” | 3 |
| 5 | Dixon v. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION | green | “to protect lenders from liability for actions or statements a lender might make in the context of counseling or negotiating with the borrower which the borrower construes as an agreement.” | 3 |
| 6 | Peter Bloch v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage | green | “it is undisputed there is no signed written agreement expressing consideration and setting forth the relevant terms and conditions of the purported hamp modification.” | 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.