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 5 cases, quoted by 172 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 Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Anchor | green | “determine whether the factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint set forth a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted.” | 125 |
| 2 | SIG Arms Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau | green | “under new hampshire choice-of-law principles, when more than one state may have an interest in the suit and the choice involves substantive law, the court must first decide whether relevant new hampshire law actually conflicts with the laws of the other interested states.” | 13 |
| 3 | Lexington Insurance Company v. General Accident Insurance Company of America | green | “determining what state law is relevant, a federal court must apply the choice-of-law framework of the forum state” | 10 |
| 4 | In the Matter of Paula Geraghty and Kenneth Geraghty | green | “(1) predictability of results; (2) maintenance of reasonable orderliness and good relationship among the states in our federal system; (3) simplification of the judicial task; (4) advancement by the court of its own state's governmental interests rather than those of other state…” | 8 |
| 5 | In the Matter of Paula Geraghty and Kenneth Geraghty | green | “as such, this factor tends to play a tie-breaker role in close cases.” | 8 |
| 6 | Lessard v. Clarke | green | “which does not have substantial connection with the total facts and with the particular issue being litigated.” | 8 |
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.