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.
8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 216 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 Hall v. Hall.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hall v. Hall Anchor | green | “district courts enjoy substantial discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to consolidate cases.” | 138 |
| 2 | St. Bernard General Hospital, Inc. v. Hospital Service Association of New Orleans, Inc. | green | “consolidation is improper if it would prejudice the rights of the parties.” | 22 |
| 3 | Cantrell v. Gaf Corporation | green | “may issue an order of consolidation on its own motion, and despite the protestations of the parties.” | 14 |
| 4 | Soberay MacHine & Equipment Company, (96-3946 97-3308)/cross-Appellee v. Mrf Limited, Inc., Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant (96-3997) | green | “it is appropriate to drop a nondiverse and dispensable party from litigation in order to achieve diversity.” | 14 |
| 5 | Safeco Insurance Company of America v. City of White House, Tennessee, a Municipal Corporation | green | “(1) complete relief cannot be given to existing parties in his absence; (2) disposition in his absence may impair his ability to protect his interest in the controversy; or (3) his absence would expose existing parties to substantial risk of double or inconsistent obligations.” | 10 |
| 6 | Banacki v. OneWest Bank, FSB | green | “involves some common issues but individual issues predominate, consolidation should be denied.” | 8 |
| 7 | H.R. ex rel. Reuter v. Medtronic, Inc. | green | “(1) a judgment rendered in the party's absence would prejudice the available party; (2) such prejudice could be lessened or avoided; (3) a judgment rendered in the party's absence would be adequate; and (4) the plaintiff has an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for non-…” | 6 |
| 8 | Safeco Insurance Company of America v. City of White House, Tennessee, a Municipal Corporation | green | “a party is needed for just adjudication under rule 19.” | 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.