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.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 26 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 Brookhart v. Janis.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brookhart v. Janis Anchor | green | “there is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, and for a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” | 7 |
| 2 | United States v. Thomas Allen Russell | green | “reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.” | 4 |
| 3 | Dale Matthew Olson v. Leslie Green, Chairman of Minnesota Board of Corrections, and Warren Spannaus, Attorney General of the State of Minnesota | green | “acted on the defendant's behalf or that they acted together.” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Thomas Allen Russell | green | “conspirators are responsible for crimes committed 'within the scope of the unlawful project' and thus 'reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.” | 3 |
| 5 | United States v. Walter E. Brewer and Brian E. Honel | green | “until the conspiracy accomplished its goals or that conspirator withdraws.” | 3 |
| 6 | United States v. White | green | “because it was reasonably foreseeable to them joshua price could murder a witness in order to protect the drug distribution operation.” | 3 |
| 7 | United States v. White | green | “the mere fact that defendants may have participated in the drug conspiracy did not constitute a waiver of their constitutional confrontation rights.” | 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.