6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 24 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 Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. Anchor | green | “scienter requirement may mitigate a law's vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed.” | 9 |
| 2 | United States v. Hussein | green | “but khat, unlike cocaine, is not a controlled substance per se, and the government concedes that it is not enough to show that the appellant knowingly possessed khat.” | 3 |
| 3 | United States v. Hussein | green | “the government concedes that it is not enough to show that the appellant knowingly possessed khat.” | 3 |
| 4 | Wondemu Gebreegziabh Argaw v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General | green | “ithout scientific testing on a case-by-case basis, it cannot be determined when cathine or cathinone appears in khat.” | 3 |
| 5 | Wondemu Gebreegziabh Argaw v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General | green | “khat is not a controlled substance” | 3 |
| 6 | United States v. Daahir Caseer | green | “o convict properly of the charged offenses, the district court would need to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that actually knew that khat contained a controlled substance.” | 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.