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.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 24 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 South Florida Water Management District v. RLI Live Oak, LLC.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | South Florida Water Management District v. RLI Live Oak, LLC Anchor | green | “of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” | 8 |
| 2 | I.P. Ex Rel. Cardenas v. Henneberry | green | “because plaintiff intends on staying on medicaid, any funds allocated for future medical expenses should rightfully be exposed to the state's lien so that the state can be reimbursed for its past medical payments.” | 4 |
| 3 | Ahlborn v. Arkansas Department of Human Services | neutral | “is limited to that portion of the settlement proceeds which fairly represents the past medical expense component of her recovery.” | 3 |
| 4 | Latham v. Recovery Services | green | “after a thorough examination of the ahlborn decision and the language contained in the west virginia statute . . . we find that the statute directly conflicts with ahlborn, insofar as it permits the state to assert a claim to more than the portion of a recipient's settlement tha…” | 3 |
| 5 | Latham v. Recovery Services | green | “the court did not include 'future medical expenses' in that list, it would have fit.” | 3 |
| 6 | Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Tucker | green | “we review the grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing all inferences and reviewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” | 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.