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 6 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 Bickel v. City of Piedmont.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bickel v. City of Piedmont Anchor | yellow | “where findings of fact are challenged on a civil appeal, we are bound by the "elementary, but often overlooked principle of law, that . . . the power of an appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncon…” | 5 |
| 2 | Bickel v. City of Piedmont | yellow | “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in its favor . . . .” | 4 |
| 3 | Abatti v. Superior Court | green | “both the individual officer and the law enforcement agency are entitled to claim the confidential personnel records privilege of penal code section 832.7.” | 3 |
| 4 | Wright v. State | green | “the grievance writer and the senior youth counselor sit down and see if they can mediate it before it gets to the first level.” | 3 |
| 5 | Daniels v. Delaware | green | “insofar as he suggests that the guard had a pattern and practice of abusing prisoners such that maintaining him in any position where he would have contact with prisoners would constitute deliberate indifference,” | 3 |
| 6 | Michael Chess v. J. Dovey | green | “where the parties do not put into issue a security-based policy, the deference instruction has no 'foundation in the evidence' and should not be given.” | 3 |
| 7 | Bickel v. City of Piedmont | yellow | “bound by the 'elementary, but often overlooked principle of law, that . . . the power of an appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted,' to support the findings below. the court must theref…” | 3 |
| 8 | Mansur v. Ford Motor Co. | green | “if its instructions embrace all points of law necessary to a decision.” | 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.