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 53 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 Hartig Drug Co Inc v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co Ltd.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hartig Drug Co Inc v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co Ltd Anchor | green | “a facial 12(b)(1) challenge, which attacks the complaint on its face without contesting its alleged facts, is like a 12(b)(6) motion in requiring the court to 'consider the allegations of the complaint as true.” | 29 |
| 2 | In Re Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action | green | “a court must grant a motion to dismiss if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a claim.” | 24 |
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.