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 Hudis v. Crawford.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hudis v. Crawford Anchor | green | “a 'lack of standing' is a jurisdictional defect.” | 4 |
| 2 | Hudis v. Crawford | green | “a 'lack of standing' is a jurisdictional defect” | 3 |
| 3 | Corbett v. Superior Court | green | “our receipt of numerous amicus curiae briefs underscores the importance of the issue.” | 3 |
| 4 | Orange Unified Sch. Dist. v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist. | green | “a ministerial duty is one that is required to be performed in a prescribed manner under the mandate of legal authority without the exercise of discretion or judgment.” | 3 |
| 5 | Collier v. Lindley | green | “in the event that this instrument does not create a valid, charitable trust, or, if it be finally adjudicated that any purpose set forth herein be invalid, the sum of 500 out of the corpus of the estate shall belong to, and be forthwith paid to, john collier.” | 3 |
| 6 | Weatherford v. City of San Rafael | green | “reflects a sensitivity to broader prudential and separation of powers considerations elucidating how and when parties should be entitled to seek relief under particular statutes.” | 3 |
| 7 | People ex rel. Alzayat v. Hebb | green | “improve the efficiency and efficacy of the health care system, reduce the cost of providing health care services, and improve the health of californians.” | 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.