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.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 97 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 Lee v. City Of Los Angeles.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lee v. City Of Los Angeles Anchor | green | “disputed facts stated in public records.” | 43 |
| 2 | Esperanza Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing | green | “federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” | 33 |
| 3 | Esperanza Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing | green | “it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” | 12 |
| 4 | Theis Research, Inc. v. Brown & Bain | green | “the amount at stake in the underlying litigation . . . is the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction” | 6 |
| 5 | Rutman Wine Company v. E. & J. Gallo Winery | green | “enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of claims asserted in a complaint.” | 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.