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.
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 RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal Anchor | green | “an unusual form of relief and one that must not be granted without heightened consideration” | 13 |
| 2 | ESTATE OF | green | “we must accord substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators, who bear a significant responsibility for defining the legitimate goals of a corrections system and for determining the most appropriate means to accomplish them.” | 5 |
| 3 | Rushing v. Ambest, Inc. | green | “when the magistrate judge ruling effectively removes a defense or claim from the case, however, several courts have found it to be dispositive and subject to de novo review.” | 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.