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.
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 Alejandro Vivanco Alarcon as of the Estate of Araceli Alarcon Velazquez, Marie Eugenie Alarcon Velazquez, and Robert Blaauw as Receiver for Zalinco Corporation, N v. and Ocana Corporation, N v. v. Gabriel Alarcon Velazquez.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alejandro Vivanco Alarcon as of the Estate of Araceli Alarcon Velazquez, Marie Eugenie Alarcon Velazquez, and Robert Blaauw as Receiver for Zalinco Corporation, N v. and Ocana Corporation, N v. v. Gabriel Alarcon Velazquez Anchor | green | “the substantive law applicable to the underlying tort action is not automatically applicable to a defendant's contribution claim.” | 4 |
| 2 | Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd. | green | “as set forth in the majority opinion, kansas statutes section 60 19a02 violates section 5 of the kansas constitution bill of rights.” | 3 |
| 3 | Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd. | green | “is facially unconstitutional because it violates section 5 of the kansas constitution bill of rights.” | 3 |
| 4 | Cooper Industries, LLC v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. | green | “substantial disruption in daily routine or a high degree of mental pain and distress.” | 3 |
| 5 | Union Pacific Railroad v. Seber | green | “but the general rule has exceptions.” | 3 |
| 6 | SCI Tex. Funeral Servs., Inc. v. Nelson | green | “direct evidence of the nature, duration, and severity of the plaintiff's mental anguish, thus establishing a substantial disruption to the plaintiff's daily routine.” | 3 |
| 7 | In re Mahindra, USA Inc. | green | “forum non conveniens is essentially 'a supervening venue provision . . . that goes to process rather than substantive rights-determining which among various competent courts will decide the case.” | 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.