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.
4 canonical passages across 4 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 Fernandes v. Singh.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fernandes v. Singh Anchor | green | “a brief must contain ' "meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error” | 13 |
| 2 | Beatrice Co. v. State Board of Equalization | green | “it is the rule that exemptions are construed liberally in favor of the taxing authority and strictly against the taxpayer.” | 3 |
| 3 | Valentino v. Franchise Tax Board | green | “facilitates california taxation of income attributable to california sources,” | 3 |
| 4 | Swart Enterprises, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board | green | “do not have a nexus with california” | 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.