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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 276 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 Gunn v. Minton.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gunn v. Minton Anchor | green | “federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by congress.” | 156 |
| 2 | Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson | green | “the mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction.” | 79 |
| 3 | Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing | green | “in certain cases federal-question jurisdiction will lie over state-law claims that implicate significant federal issues.” | 41 |
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.