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 2 cases, quoted by 18 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 Morgantown MacH. & Hydraulics of Ohio, Inc. v. Am. Piping Prods., Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Morgantown MacH. & Hydraulics of Ohio, Inc. v. Am. Piping Prods., Inc. Anchor | green | “federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law.” | 7 |
| 2 | The Netherlands Insurance Co. v. Main Street Ingredients, LLC | green | “because the parties do not dispute the choice of minnesota law, we assume, without deciding, minnesota law applies.” | 6 |
| 3 | The Netherlands Insurance Co. v. Main Street Ingredients, LLC | green | “must predict how the supreme court of minnesota would rule, and . . . follow decisions of the minnesota court of appeals when they are the best evidence of minnesota law.” | 5 |
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.