6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 56 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 Reuben J. Katz, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Carte Blanche Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reuben J. Katz, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Carte Blanche Corporation Anchor | green | “entirely unrelated reasons such as the state of the appellate docket or the desire to have a full record before considering the disputed legal issue.” | 15 |
| 2 | Mata v. Eclipse Aerospace, Inc. (In Re AE Liquidation, Inc.) | green | “typically, however, district courts follow the standards set forth under 28 u.s.c. 1292 (b), which govern interlocutory appeals from a district court to a court of appeals.” | 14 |
| 3 | In Re Delaware & Hudson Railway Co. | green | “establishes exceptional circumstances to justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing review until after the entry of final judgment.” | 12 |
| 4 | In Re Bertoli | green | “based upon the decision of the third circuit in bertoli v. d'avella (in re bertoli), 812 f.2d 136, 139 (3d cir. 1987), courts within this circuit confronted with the decision whether to grant leave to allow an interlocutory appeal are informed by the criteria in 28 u.s.c. 1292 …” | 6 |
| 5 | Hulmes v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd. | green | “the difference of opinion must arise out of genuine doubt as to the correct legal standard.” | 6 |
| 6 | Mata v. Eclipse Aerospace, Inc. (In Re AE Liquidation, Inc.) | green | “interlocutory appeal is meant to be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the interests cutting in favor of immediate appeal overcome the presumption against piecemeal litigation.” | 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.