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.
3 canonical passages across 3 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 Anne Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., Globe Newspaper Company, Intervenor.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Anne Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., Globe Newspaper Company, Intervenor Anchor | green | “materials on which a court relies in determining the litigants' substantive rights.” | 18 |
| 2 | Picciotto v. Salem Suede, Inc. (In Re Salem Suede, Inc.) | green | “there is a strong common law presumption favoring public access to judicial proceedings and records.” | 3 |
| 3 | Eil v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration | green | “rooted in a desire to allow the citizenry to monitor the functioning of our courts, thereby insuring quality, honesty and respect for our legal system.” | 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.