3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 35 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 Republic Of Panama v. Bcci Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Republic Of Panama v. Bcci Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A. Anchor | green | “after dismissing panama's federal claims against the . . . defendants, the district court correctly dismissed its remaining state law claims against these defendants.” | 19 |
| 2 | Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Igor Shabanets | green | “when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a district court should typically dismiss the pendant state claims as well.” | 13 |
| 3 | Austin and Laurato, P.A. v. United States | green | “an essential prerequisite to a federal court's power to entertain a suit is an article iii case or controversy” | 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.