3 canonical passages across 2 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 In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation Anchor | green | “when appointing interim class counsel, courts generally look to the same factors used in determining the adequacy of class counsel under rule 23(g)(1)(a).” | 12 |
| 2 | C.T. v. Liberal School District | green | “the decision whether to consolidate such actions is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” | 7 |
| 3 | In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation | green | “when more than one choice of counsel satisfies these requirements for adequacy, rule 23(g)(2) provides that the court 'must appoint the applicant best able to represent the interests of' the plaintiffs.” | 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.