3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 15 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 Bryant v. HCA Health Services of No. Tennessee, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bryant v. HCA Health Services of No. Tennessee, Inc. Anchor | green | “a statute is ambiguous if the statute is capable of conveying more than one meaning.” | 8 |
| 2 | In Re: Estate of Martha M. Tanner | green | “any interpretation of the statute that 'would render one section of the act repugnant to another' should be avoided.” | 4 |
| 3 | Arden v. Kozawa | green | “where statutory language is ambiguous, we may decipher legislative intent in other ways, including consideration of the broader statutory scheme, legislative history, and other sources.” | 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.