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 State ex rel. Dannaher v. Crawford.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State ex rel. Dannaher v. Crawford Anchor | green | “where jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking, a relator need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy at law because the availability of alternate remedies like appeal would be immaterial.” | 5 |
| 2 | State ex rel. Lewis v. Moser | green | “circumvent the appellate process.” | 3 |
| 3 | State ex rel. Willacy v. Smith | green | “absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party challenging the court's jurisdiction possesses an adequate remedy by appeal.” | 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.