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 11 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 Zimbelman v. Savage.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Zimbelman v. Savage Anchor | green | “a bivens action is a judicially created damages remedy designed to vindicate violations of constitutional rights,' by a federal official.” | 4 |
| 2 | Moffett v. Computer Sciences Corp. | green | “a bivens action is a judicially created damages remedy designed to vindicate violations of constitutional rights,' by a federal official.” | 4 |
| 3 | Hammes v. Aamco Transmissions, Incorporated | green | “in a diversity case, . . . the complaint must allege the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy.” | 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.