5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 24 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 Rinzler v. Carson.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rinzler v. Carson Anchor | green | “a municipality cannot forbid what the legislature has expressly licensed, authorized or required, nor may it authorize what the legislature has expressly forbidden.” | 9 |
| 2 | State Ex Rel. Dade County v. Brautigam | green | “means contradictory in the sense of legislative provisions which cannot coexist” | 4 |
| 3 | Hillsborough County v. FLORIDA REST. ASS'N | green | “if a county has enacted such an inconsistent ordinance, the ordinance must be declared null and void.” | 4 |
| 4 | Browning v. Sarasota Alliance | green | “the test for conflict is whether 'in order to comply with one provision, a violation of the other is required.” | 4 |
| 5 | City of Hollywood v. Mulligan | green | “preemption essentially takes a topic or a field in which local government might otherwise establish appropriate local laws and reserves that topic for regulation exclusively by the legislature.” | 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.