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.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 57 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 Jefferson County v. Acker.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jefferson County v. Acker Anchor | red | “under the federal officer removal statute, suits against federal officers may be removed despite the nonfederal cast of the complaint; the federal-question element is met if the defense depends on federal law.” | 16 |
| 2 | Jefferson County v. Acker | red | “may be removed despite the nonfederal cast of the complaint; the federal-question element is met if the defense depends on federal law.” | 15 |
| 3 | United States v. Michael Todd v. State of Arkansas, Arkansas State Police Department, and David D. Stills | green | “for a defense to be considered colorable, it need only be plausible; 1442(a)(1) does not require a court to hold that a defense will be successful before removal is appropriate.” | 10 |
| 4 | Turner v. United States Department of Justice | green | “under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, also called issue preclusion, 'when an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action b…” | 9 |
| 5 | Christopher Graves v. 3M Company | green | “3m made the requisite showing of a colorable federal contractor defense in the military contractor cases,” | 4 |
| 6 | Hus Buljic v. Tyson Foods Inc | green | “federal officer removal statute is to be 'liberally construed,' and thus the typical presumption against removal does not apply.” | 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.