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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 19 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 Peter Odhiambo v. Republic of Kenya.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Peter Odhiambo v. Republic of Kenya Anchor | green | “if no exception applies, the district court has no jurisdiction.” | 8 |
| 2 | Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran | green | “courts have uniformly held that a terrorist attack-by its nature-is directed not only at the victims but also at the victims' families.” | 5 |
| 3 | Wamai v. Republic of Sudan | green | “acts of terrorism 'by their very definition' amount to extreme and outrageous conduct,” | 3 |
| 4 | Amduso v. Republic of Sudan | green | “all facts found by the special masters” | 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.