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.
7 canonical passages across 6 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 Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 Anchor | green | “statutory analysis begins with the plain language of a statute, and if that language is unambiguous, the inquiry ends there” | 3 |
| 2 | Vasquez v. California | green | “change the scope of a statute by reading into it language it does not contain or by reading out of it language it does” | 3 |
| 3 | Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange | green | “spot zoning may or may not be impermissible, depending on the circumstances” | 3 |
| 4 | Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange | green | “the approval of a specific plan does not create a vested right to develop property in a manner consistent with the specific plan, or to prevent development inconsistent with it” | 3 |
| 5 | La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Ass'n of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles | green | “addendum to the certified environmental impact report for the target at sunset and western project” | 3 |
| 6 | Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District | green | “substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report” | 3 |
| 7 | Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz | green | “it is unclear whether the ordinance will in fact induce future development” | 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.