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 3 cases, quoted by 547 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 Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. Anchor | green | “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” | 184 |
| 2 | Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. | green | “when a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” | 124 |
| 3 | Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. | green | “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” | 106 |
| 4 | Scott Buethe v. Britt Airlines, Inc. | green | “must raise the issue sua sponte when it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.” | 40 |
| 5 | Evergreen Square v. Wisconsin Housing & Economic Development Authority | green | “federal courts are obligated to inquire into the existence of jurisdiction sua sponte” | 40 |
| 6 | Evergreen Square v. Wisconsin Housing & Economic Development Authority | green | “the parties' united front is irrelevant since the parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement...and federal courts are obligated to inquire into the existence of jurisdiction sua sponte” | 22 |
| 7 | Scott Buethe v. Britt Airlines, Inc. | green | “it is axiomatic that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and that courts must raise the issue sua sponte when it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.” | 6 |
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.