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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 32 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 Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn. Anchor | green | “an agency must consider and respond to significant comments received during the period for public comment.” | 11 |
| 2 | Trump v. Hawaii | green | “because this case implicates immigration policy, a nationwide injunction was necessary to give plaintiffs a full expression of their rights.” | 9 |
| 3 | State of Hawaii v. Donald Trump | green | “because this case implicates immigration policy, a nationwide injunction was necessary to give plaintiffs a full expression of their rights.” | 8 |
| 4 | City of New York v. Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations | green | “it would be problematic if incidental foreign affairs effects eliminated public participation in this entire area of administrative law.” | 4 |
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.