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 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 Kejriwal Iron and Steel Works, Ltd. v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kejriwal Iron and Steel Works, Ltd. v. United States Anchor | green | “shall, where appropriate, require the exhaustion of administrative remedies.” | 4 |
| 2 | Rhone Poulenc S.A. v. United States | green | “would be futile or an insistence on a useless formality.” | 3 |
| 3 | Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. United States | green | “must resist inflexible applications of the doctrine - characteristic of jurisdictional rules which frustrate the ability to apply exceptions developed to cover 'exceptional cases or particular circumstances where injustice might otherwise result' if it were strictly applied.” | 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.