7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 22 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 Roberts v. Roadway Express, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Roberts v. Roadway Express, Inc. Anchor | green | “if roadway means to argue that colorado's workers' compensation act provides the exclusive remedy for all work-related injuries including emotional distress caused by violations of the civil rights laws, that argument is readily disposed of by the supremacy clause.” | 4 |
| 2 | Cushman v. Shinseki | green | “has concluded that applicants for benefits, no less than benefits recipients, may possess a property interest in the receipt of public welfare entitlements,” | 3 |
| 3 | Lila M. Mallette v. Arlington County Employees' Supplemental Retirement System II Arlington County Board of Supervisors | green | “point to some policy, law, or mutually explicit understanding that both confers the benefits and limits the discretion of the other party to rescind the benefit.” | 3 |
| 4 | Annette B. Demauro v. Joseph M. Demauro, Edward Martin, Demauro Co., Inc., Nicholas Demauro, Tri-Area Development Co., Inc. And Joan Martin | green | “we need not adopt a state law definition of 'business or property' which is so broad that it contravenes congress' intent in enacting the rico law.” | 3 |
| 5 | Ronnie Evans v. City of Chicago | green | “an employee is able to establish that he has been unlawfully deprived of a property right in promised or contracted-for wages.” | 3 |
| 6 | Ronnie Evans v. City of Chicago | green | “pecuniary losses flowing from personal injuries” | 3 |
| 7 | Williams v. Hofley Manufacturing Co. | green | “the supreme court has repeatedly reserved decision on the question of whether applicants for benefits (in contradistinction to current recipients of benefits) possess a property interest protected by the due process clause.” | 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.