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.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 43 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 DeLuna v. Burciaga.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DeLuna v. Burciaga Anchor | green | “when the language of the statute is clear, it must be applied as written without resort to aids or tools of interpretation.” | 30 |
| 2 | In Re Marriage of Kates | green | “statutes should be read as a whole with all relevant parts considered, and they should be construed, if possible, so that no term is rendered superfluous or meaningless.” | 4 |
| 3 | Housing Authority v. Holtzman | green | “tax money allotted for public works.” | 3 |
| 4 | Housing Authority v. Holtzman | green | “the principal and sureties on this bond agree that all the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions and agreements of the contract or contracts entered into between the principal and the state or any political subdivision thereof will be performed and fulfilled .” | 3 |
| 5 | People v. Illinois Department of Labor | neutral | “a court of review is entitled to have the issues clearly defined and to be cited pertinent authority.” | 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.