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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 285 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 Connecticut National Bank v. Douglas.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Connecticut National Bank v. Douglas Anchor | green | “in . . . ruling on the . . . motion to strike, the trial court recognized its obligation to take the facts to be those alleged in the special defenses and to construe the defenses in the manner most favorable to sustaining their legal sufficiency.” | 123 |
| 2 | Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp. | green | “a motion to strike admits all facts well pleaded; it does not admit legal conclusions or the truth or accuracy of opinions stated in the pleadings.” | 120 |
| 3 | Sheiman v. Lafayette Bank & Trust Co. | green | “the mere use of the words reckless' and wanton' is insufficient to raise an actionable claim of reckless and wanton misconduct.” | 31 |
| 4 | Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC | green | “a party wanting to contest the legal sufficiency of a special defense may do so by filing a motion to strike.” | 11 |
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.