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 2 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 In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury Anchor | green | “extraordinary in nature and, because they run contrary to notions of finality and repose, should be discouraged.” | 6 |
| 2 | In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury | green | “it need not and should not do so in the vast majority of instances,” | 6 |
| 3 | In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury | green | “to proffer a new legal theory or new evidence to support a prior argument when the legal theory or argument could, with due diligence, have been discovered and offered during the initial consideration of the issue.” | 5 |
| 4 | Dana Corp. v. United States | green | “to proffer a new legal theory or new evidence to support a prior argument when the legal theory or argument could, with due diligence, have been discovered and offered during the initial consideration of the issue.” | 4 |
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.