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.
8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 28 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 State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Anchor | green | “cumbersome, lengthy, and potentially costly” | 6 |
| 2 | Hustedt v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board | green | “it is well established that the adoption of section 4 'effected a repeal pro tanto' of any state constitutional provisions which conflicted with that amendment” | 4 |
| 3 | Mathews v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board | green | “further clarified and expanded the scope of the legislature's constitutional authority to enact . . . legislation as part of a complete system of workers' compensation.” | 3 |
| 4 | Jennings v. Jones | green | “their own concept of 'good cause,” | 3 |
| 5 | Notrica v. State Compensation Insurance Fund | green | “neither more nor less than self-supporting.” | 3 |
| 6 | California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. v. Department of Managed Health Care | green | “submit documentation regarding the claim, and the statute allows sufficient time for adequate consideration.” | 3 |
| 7 | California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. v. Department of Managed Health Care | green | “would slow down the process and create a substantial governmental burden . . . with little resulting benefit in most cases.” | 3 |
| 8 | Giaimo v. City of New Haven | green | “if the employees in american manufacturers had claimed that the statute provided inadequate procedures for establishing such a right to the benefit itself, the high court's analysis might have been very different.” | 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.