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 52 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 Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. Anchor | green | “federal common law governs the claim-preclusive effect of a dismissal by a federal court sitting in diversity.” | 24 |
| 2 | Getty Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America | green | “their relatedness in time, space, origin, or motivation, and whether, taken together, they form a convenient unit for trial purposes.” | 9 |
| 3 | Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. | green | “incompatible with federal interests.” | 9 |
| 4 | Hitchcock Properties, Inc. v. Levering | green | “given the nature of an option's relation to and limitation over the land optioned, it is no less logically included in the definition of an 'interest' in land, than is, for example, an easement, or royalty interest, or a contingent future interest.” | 4 |
| 5 | Eland Energy, Inc. v. Rowden Oil & Gas, Inc. | green | “statute of frauds . . . does not render void or illegal a promise or contract within its terms” | 3 |
| 6 | Hutchings v. Slemons | green | “statute of frauds . . . does not render void or illegal a promise or contract within its terms” | 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.