7 canonical passages across 7 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 Petersen v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Petersen v. State Anchor | green | “a trial court does not abuse its discretion by allowing a party to propose a hypothetical question based solely on that party's theory of the case or to include disputed facts.” | 3 |
| 2 | Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc. | green | “only after the court defines the protected class will the jury then determine whether the injury to the plaintiff was foreseeable.” | 3 |
| 3 | Tae Kim v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc. | green | “the existence of duty is a question of law.” | 3 |
| 4 | Bell v. State | green | “a plaintiff in a negligent parole supervision action must show not only inadequate supervision, but must also carry the burden to demonstrate the damage sustained by the plaintiff would have been avoided but for the inadequate supervision.” | 3 |
| 5 | Kelley v. Department of Corrections | green | “enforce all conditions and requirements imposed by the court... or department of corrections,” | 3 |
| 6 | Seybold v. Neu | green | “produce competent medical expert testimony establishing that the injury was proximately caused by a failure to comply with the applicable standard of care.” | 3 |
| 7 | Gilliam v. Department of Social & Health Services | green | “under these circumstances a cause of action for negligent supervision is redundant.” | 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.