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 3 cases, quoted by 23 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 United States v. Cruz-Ramos.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Cruz-Ramos Anchor | green | “the evidence need not definitively resolve a key issue in the case,' but rather 'need only move the inquiry forward to some degree.” | 9 |
| 2 | Bielunas v. F/V Misty Dawn, Inc. | green | “it is no exaggeration to say that 'a relevancy-based argument is usually a tough sell.” | 7 |
| 3 | Ira Green, Inc. v. Military Sales & Service Co. | green | “an out-of-court statement is not hearsay if it is relevant regardless of its truth (say, to show state of mind).” | 4 |
| 4 | Bielunas v. F/V Misty Dawn, Inc. | green | “a relevancy-based argument is usually a tough sell.” | 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.