5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 25 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 Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia Anchor | green | “deference to a legislative finding cannot limit judicial inquiry when first amendment rights are at stake.” | 10 |
| 2 | Ripplinger v. Collins | green | “justifiably attacked on its face as abridging free expression.” | 4 |
| 3 | Priscilla Garcia Maricela Buitrago United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Afl-Cio v. Spun Steak Company, a California Corporation | green | “must examine restrictions on speech with particular care when their effects fall unevenly on different ... groups in society” | 4 |
| 4 | Cota v. Tucson Police Department | green | “the availability of spanish-speaking personnel is necessary for effective performance of the tucson police department's mission” | 4 |
| 5 | Martin v. Parrish | green | “the extra power the government has in this area comes from the nature of the government's mission as employer,” | 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.