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 3 cases, quoted by 19 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 Securities And Exchange Commission v. Thestreet.Com.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Securities And Exchange Commission v. Thestreet.Com Anchor | green | “absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.” | 9 |
| 2 | In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation | green | “a protective order granted on the basis of a stipulation by the parties carries less weight than a protective order granted after a hearing to show good cause.” | 4 |
| 3 | In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation | green | “an examination of second circuit case law reveals the following factors are relevant when determining whether a party has reasonably relied on the protective order: (1) the scope of the protective order; (2) the language of the order itself; (3) the level of inquiry the court un…” | 3 |
| 4 | Charter Oak Fire Insurance v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. | green | “(1) the scope of the protective order; (2) the language of the order itself; (3) the level of inquiry the court undertook before granting the order; and (4) the nature of reliance on the order.” | 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.