6 canonical passages across 5 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 People v. Muhammad.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Muhammad Anchor | green | “if there is a possible theory under which a split verdict could be legally permissible, it cannot be repugnant, regardless of whether that theory has evidentiary support in a particular case” | 10 |
| 2 | People v. Tucker | green | “conclusive as to a necessary element” | 5 |
| 3 | People v. Muhammad | green | “there is a possible theory under which a split verdict could be legally permissible, it cannot be repugnant, regardless of whether that theory has evidentiary support in a particular case” | 4 |
| 4 | People v. Buchanan | green | “makes findings on the record showing that the particular defendant before it needs such a restraint” | 3 |
| 5 | People v. Harvey | neutral | “makes findings on the record showing that the particular defendant before it needs such a restraint” | 3 |
| 6 | People v. Long | green | “should not have had to anticipate” | 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.