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 96 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 Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority Anchor | green | “a motion to dismiss is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the jurisdiction of the court.” | 76 |
| 2 | Concerned Citizens of Sterling v. Town of Sterling | green | “because the exhaustion doctrine implicates subject matter jurisdiction, the court must decide as a threshold matter whether that doctrine requires dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.” | 15 |
| 3 | Caltabiano v. Phillips | green | “a motion to dismiss does not test the sufficiency of a cause of action and should not be granted on other than jurisdictional grounds.” | 5 |
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.