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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 22 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 Leticia Valdez v. Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation Allstate Indemnity Co., an Illinois Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leticia Valdez v. Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation Allstate Indemnity Co., an Illinois Corporation Anchor | green | “the amount-in-controversy inquiry in the removal context is not confined to the face of the complaint.” | 14 |
| 2 | Brandon Campbell v. Vitran Express, Inc. | green | “the court must assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and that a jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims in the complaint.” | 4 |
| 3 | Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter | green | “the court must assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and that a jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims in the complaint.” | 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.