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.
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.