3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 10 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 Ceglia v. Zuckerberg.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ceglia v. Zuckerberg Anchor | green | “it is a long-settled rule that in order to invoke diversity jurisdiction, the petitioner must show 'complete diversity'-that is, that it does not share citizenship with any defendant.” | 4 |
| 2 | Ceglia v. Zuckerberg | green | “a person's citizenship for purposes of diversity is based upon his domicile.” | 3 |
| 3 | Sty-Lite Co. v. Eminent Sportswear Inc. | green | “for purposes of determining diversity, 28 u.s.c. 1332 (c) provides that 'a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business.” | 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.