7 canonical passages across 4 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 Patrice v. Murphy.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Patrice v. Murphy Anchor | green | “an act relating to court costs,” | 5 |
| 2 | Pierce County v. State | green | “any objections to a title must be grave, and the conflict between it and the constitution palpable, before we will hold an act unconstitutional for violating the subject-in-title requirement.” | 5 |
| 3 | Washington State Grange v. Locke | green | “the practice of combining two bills, neither of which would pass on its own, but when the proponents of the measures combine their interests both can be enacted,” | 4 |
| 4 | Washington State Grange v. Locke | green | “to be constitutionally adequate, a title need not be 'an index to the contents of the bill, nor must it provide details of the measure.” | 3 |
| 5 | Pierce County v. State | green | “if the bill has a general title, it 'may constitutionally include all matters that are reasonably connected with it and all measures that may facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose stated.” | 3 |
| 6 | State v. Alexander | green | “if the bill has a general title, it 'may constitutionally include all matters that are reasonably connected with it and all measures that may facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose stated.” | 3 |
| 7 | State v. Alexander | green | “no bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” | 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.