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 Fernandez Molinary v. Industrias La Famosa, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fernandez Molinary v. Industrias La Famosa, Inc. Anchor | green | “is not restricted to the face of the pleadings but may consider extra-pleading materials, such as affidavits and testimony to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction.” | 5 |
| 2 | Town of Barnstable v. O'Connor | green | “construe the complaint liberally and treat all well-pleaded facts as true, according to the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” | 3 |
| 3 | Milk Indust. Regulatory Office v. Ruiz Ruiz | green | “are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome, such that it is impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party.” | 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.