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 2 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 Langle v. Kurkul.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Langle v. Kurkul Anchor | green | “the common law is changed by statute only if the statute overturns the common law in clear and unambiguous language, or if the statute is clearly inconsistent with the common law, or the statute attempts to cover the entire subject matter.” | 12 |
| 2 | E. B. & A. C. Whiting Co. v. City of Burlington | green | “rules of the common law are not to be changed by doubtful implication, nor overturned except by clear and unambiguous language.” | 5 |
| 3 | Langle v. Kurkul | green | “attempts to cover the entire subject matter.” | 4 |
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.