7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 27 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 Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue Anchor | green | “when the legislature uses limiting or modifying language in one part of a statute, but omits it in another, we regard that omission as intentional and will not add those same words of limitation or modification to parts of the statute where they were not used.” | 9 |
| 2 | Cone v. Nimocks | green | “to speculate or suppose that the legislature blundered or was laboring under a mistake when it passed legislation.” | 3 |
| 3 | In re Disciplinary Action Against Padden | green | “must read this state's laws as they are, not as some argue they should be.” | 3 |
| 4 | In re Disciplinary Action Against Padden | green | “we do not examine the statutory language in isolation, but rather we interpret the language in context of the statute as a whole.” | 3 |
| 5 | State v. Scovel | green | “a number that is one of a series and is used for identification, as of a machine, weapon, or motor vehicle” | 3 |
| 6 | Sean Michael Wocelka v. State of Minnesota | green | “it is unreasonable to think that the legislature would have enacted, and the governor would have signed, a d-12 statute.” | 3 |
| 7 | Sean Michael Wocelka v. State of Minnesota | green | “turn to other non-textual clues to resolve the ambiguity” | 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.