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 3 cases, quoted by 12 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 Johnson v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, & Pardon Services.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Johnson v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, & Pardon Services Anchor | green | “stated somewhat differently, 'subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.” | 6 |
| 2 | Bardoon Properties, NV v. Eidolon Corp. | green | “it is well-settled that issues relating to subject matter jurisdiction maybe raised at any time.” | 3 |
| 3 | Deborah Dereede Living Trust dated December 18, 2013 v. Karp | green | “subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's constitutional or statutory power to adjudicate a case.” | 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.