Supreme Court· 12/8/2015

Shapiro v. McManus

Citations

577 U.S. 39
136 S. Ct. 450
193 L. Ed. 2d 279
2015 U.S. LEXIS 7868
2015 D.A.R. 13

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that federal question jurisdiction is lacking where the claims are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” “essentially fictitious,” or “obviously without merit”
holding that federal-question jurisdiction is lacking where the claims are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” or “obviously without merit” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
holding that federal- question jurisdiction is lacking where the claims are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” “essentially fictitious,” or “obviously without merit” (cleaned up)
holding that federal-question jurisdiction is lacking where the claims are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” “essentially fictitious,” or “obviously without merit” (quotation marks and citations omitted)
holding that federal question jurisdiction is lacking where the claims are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” “essentially fictitious,” or “obviously without merit”
holding that federal-question jurisdiction is lacking where the claims are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” “essentially fictitious,” or “obviously without merit” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

65 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Shapiro v. McManus

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.