3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 21 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 Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. Anchor | green | “it is important to remember that issuance of the writ is in large part a matter of discretion with the court to which the petition is addressed.” | 13 |
| 2 | Beasley v. Shinseki | green | “whether the petitioner has satisfied the legal standard for issuing the writ.” | 5 |
| 3 | United States v. Richard O. Bertoli Podvey, Sachs, Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner & Cocoziello, Court-Appointed Standby Counsel for Richard O. Bertoli | green | “a flexible approach to the propriety of reaching the merits of a non-final order on mandamus or prohibition in that the mere possibility of other methods of review does not absolutely bar consideration of the petition.” | 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.