7 canonical passages across 7 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 In re Group Five Investments CU Permit.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In re Group Five Investments CU Permit Anchor | green | “they are reasonably supported by the findings.” | 5 |
| 2 | In re Champlain Oil Company Conditional Use Application | green | “any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the landowner.” | 3 |
| 3 | Lasek v. Vermont Vapor, Inc., and Downing Properties, LLC | green | “engage in a substantial and thorough analysis of the trial court's decision and order to ensure that the trial judge's decision was in accordance with daubert and our applicable precedents.” | 3 |
| 4 | In re Burlington Airport Permit | green | “a word used throughout an act or statutes in pari materia bears the same meaning throughout the act, unless it is obvious that another meaning was intended.” | 3 |
| 5 | USGen New England, Inc. v. Town of Rockingham | green | “a judge in a bench trial should have discretion to admit questionable technical evidence,” | 3 |
| 6 | In re Chaves A250 Permit Reconsider | green | “this statement does not undermine the court's overall finding that noise levels would generally remain under 55 dba and that the noise was not adverse to the area's aesthetics.” | 3 |
| 7 | State v. Scott | green | “is not always obvious, and scientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes.” | 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.