6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 133 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 Alvarado Partners, L.P. v. Mehta.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alvarado Partners, L.P. v. Mehta Anchor | green | “courts have consistently refused to substitute their business judgment for that of counsel and the parties.” | 23 |
| 2 | Adamson v. Bowen | green | “differing fact situations of class members do not defeat typicality under rule 23(a)(3) so long as the claims of the class representative and class members are based on the same legal or remedial theory.” | 22 |
| 3 | In Re National Football League Players Concussion Injury Litigation | green | “even if players' particular injuries are unique, their negligence and fraud claims still depend on the same common questions regarding the nfl's conduct.” | 22 |
| 4 | In Re National Football League Players Concussion Injury Litigation | green | “objectors' challenges to the fairness of the settlement agreement overlap with their challenges to adequacy of representation.” | 22 |
| 5 | Dehoyos v. Allstate Corp. | green | “general objections without factual or legal substantiation do not carry weight.” | 22 |
| 6 | Wilkerson v. Martin Marietta Corp. | green | “he recommendation of a settlement by experienced plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to great weight.” | 22 |
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.