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.
5 canonical passages across 5 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 Armintrout v. People.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Armintrout v. People Anchor | green | “when the word 'or' is used in a statute, it is presumed to be used in the disjunctive sense, unless legislative intent is clearly to the contrary.” | 11 |
| 2 | People v. Swain | green | “drives or is in actual physical control” | 3 |
| 3 | Puzick v. City of Colorado Springs | green | “police department regulations are entitled to considerable deference because of the state's substantial interest in creating and maintaining an efficient police organization.” | 3 |
| 4 | Bryant v. Career Service Authority | green | “the agency's interpretation of the rule should be given great weight unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the rule.” | 3 |
| 5 | People v. Barry | green | “deference to the interpretation provided by the officer or agency charged with the administration of the code or statute unless that interpretation is inconsistent with the legislative intent manifested in the text of the statute or code.” | 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.