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.
9 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 30 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 United States v. Michael H. Weitzenhoff Thomas W. Mariani.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Michael H. Weitzenhoff Thomas W. Mariani Anchor | green | “a defendant is deemed to have fair notice of an offense if a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence would understand that his or her conduct is prohibited by the law in question.” | 4 |
| 2 | United States v. Michael H. Weitzenhoff Thomas W. Mariani | green | “if the statutory prohibition involves conduct of a select group of persons having specialized knowledge, and the challenged phraseology is indigenous to the idiom of that class, the standard is lowered and a court may uphold a statute which uses words or phrases having a technic…” | 4 |
| 3 | Conant v. Walters | green | “condemned expression of a particular viewpoint, i.e., that medical marijuana would likely help a specific patient.” | 4 |
| 4 | United States v. Michael H. Weitzenhoff Thomas W. Mariani | green | “a select group of persons having specialized knowledge,” | 3 |
| 5 | Gorbach v. Reno | green | “rests solely on a premise as to the applicable rule of law, and the facts are established or of no controlling relevance.” | 3 |
| 6 | National Association For The Advancement Of Psychoanalysis v. California Board Of Psychology | green | “communication that occurs during psychoanalysis is entitled to constitutional protection, but it is not immune from regulation.” | 3 |
| 7 | James Fields v. Palmdale School District (Psd) | green | “compel public schools to follow their own idiosyncratic views as to what information the schools may dispense.” | 3 |
| 8 | Antwion Thompson v. D. Runnel | green | “arguments made in passing and inadequately briefed are waived.” | 3 |
| 9 | Gerardo Romero-Ochoa v. Eric H. Holder Jr. | green | “we ask only whether there are plausible reasons for the legislature's action, and if there are, our inquiry is at an end.” | 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.