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.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 119 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 Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission Anchor | green | “in actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” | 88 |
| 2 | Dixon v. Edwards | green | “the pecuniary result to either party which a judgment would produce.” | 9 |
| 3 | Dixon v. Edwards | green | “in this circuit, it is settled that the test for determining the amount in controversy in a diversity proceeding is 'the pecuniary result to either party which a judgment would produce.” | 7 |
| 4 | Michael Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC | green | “when a plaintiff's complaint leaves the amount of damages unspecified, the defendant must provide evidence to show what the stakes of litigation are given the plaintiff's actual demands.” | 6 |
| 5 | Thomas Francis v. Allstate Insurance Company | green | “if a complaint 'does not allege a specific amount of damages, the removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds 75,000.” | 5 |
| 6 | Lanier v. Norfolk Southern Corp. | green | “the question is not what damages the plaintiff will recover, but what amount is in controversy between the parties.” | 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.