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.
7 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 77 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 King v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | King v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America Anchor | green | “a federal court adjudicating a matter of state law in a diversity suit is, in effect, only another court of the state; it would be incongruous indeed to hold the federal court bound by a decision which would not be binding on any state court.” | 14 |
| 2 | Appalachian Railcar Services, Inc. v. Boatright Enterprises, Inc. | green | “a federal court adjudicating a matter of state law in a diversity suit is, in effect, only another court of the state; it would be incongruous indeed to hold the federal court bound by a decision which would not be binding on any state court.” | 13 |
| 3 | Appalachian Railcar Services, Inc. v. Boatright Enterprises, Inc. | green | “a published decision of the court of appeals has precedential value under the rule of stare decisis.” | 13 |
| 4 | Appalachian Railcar Services, Inc. v. Boatright Enterprises, Inc. | green | “in applying state law, we anticipate how the relevant state's highest court would rule in the case and are bound by controlling decisions of that court.” | 12 |
| 5 | Royal Indemnity Company v. Henry Clingan and Linda Clingan | green | “although we are not bound in a diversity case by an unreported decision of a state court of original jurisdiction, we may give weight to this unreported decision of the chancery court in determining what is the controlling state law.” | 10 |
| 6 | Lonnie Tolley v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company and Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. | green | “we cite them, nevertheless, due to our sensitivity to state law in deciding diversity cases.” | 9 |
| 7 | King v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America | green | “it would be incongruous indeed to hold the federal court bound by a decision which would not be binding on any state court.” | 6 |
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.