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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 23 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 Maryland Stadium Authority v. Ellerbe Becket Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Maryland Stadium Authority v. Ellerbe Becket Inc. Anchor | green | “to construe removal jurisdiction strictly because of the 'significant federalism concerns' implicated” | 15 |
| 2 | Custer v. Sweeney | green | “federalism concerns strongly counsel against imputing to congress an intent to displace a whole panoply of state law ... absent some clearly expressed direction.” | 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.