6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 18 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 Carmell v. Texas.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carmell v. Texas Anchor | green | “a law reducing the quantum of evidence required to convict an offender is as grossly unfair as, say, retrospectively eliminating an element of the offense, increasing the punishment for an existing offense, or lowering the burden of proof” | 3 |
| 2 | Julian v. Christopher | green | “contracts are drafted based on what the law is; to upset such transactions even for the purpose of improving the law could be grossly unfair. overruling prospectively is particularly appropriate when we are dealing with decisions involving contract law.” | 3 |
| 3 | Turner v. State | green | “it would eviscerate the rule to allow an accomplice to corroborate himself.” | 3 |
| 4 | Williams v. State | green | “n maryland . . . a conviction may not rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice” | 3 |
| 5 | Nolan v. State | green | “the corroborating evidence . . . may consist of . . . untruthful statements made by” | 3 |
| 6 | Rivenbark v. State | green | “if a witness qualifies merely as an accessory after the fact, he is not usually regarded as an accomplice and hence his testimony need not be corroborated.” | 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.