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 15 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 Spectra Communications Group v. City of Cameron, Missouri.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Spectra Communications Group v. City of Cameron, Missouri Anchor | green | “in a pragmatic, flexible manner with a view to the realities of the case at hand.” | 7 |
| 2 | Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. Controlled Air, Inc. | green | “a substantial similarity must exist between the state and federal proceedings, which similarity occurs when there is a substantial likelihood that the state proceeding will fully dispose of the claims presented in the federal court.” | 5 |
| 3 | Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. Controlled Air, Inc. | green | “when there is a substantial likelihood that the state proceeding will fully dispose of the claims presented in the federal court.” | 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.