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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 7 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 Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, Pennsylvania Anchor | green | “dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not appropriate merely because the legal theory alleged is probably false, but only because the right claimed is 'so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to i…” | 4 |
| 2 | Bobby Goldman v. Gallant Securities, Inc. Paine Webber, Inc. Alvin Gallant and Donald Kanterman, Donald Kanterman | green | “in determining whether the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a cause of action, a district court must look to the way the complaint is drawn to see if it claims a right to recover under the laws of the united states.” | 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.